cause that was a violation of the cove. nant between God and his people, which is repeatedly denominated a marriage covenant. Comp. Ex. 34. 15, Deut. 31. 16, Judg. 8. 33. 8,9. And thou shalt say unto them, &c. The law enacted in these two verses we conceive to differ from the foregoing, by having respect exclusively to beasts slain for sacrifice, and not for food. It is an emphatic declaration of the divine will as to the place where all sacrificial offerings should be made. As God designed there should be one altar, one high-priest, one sanctuary, and one commonwealth of Israel, this unity of the nation and the religion would be destroyed if various altars ánd priests, and various places of offerings, were allowed. Besides, a plurality of priests, altars, and sanctuaries, would very naturally lead to a plurality of gods, and thus all the evils of idolatry would be gradually introduced into the worship of the chosen people. statute before us, requiring all their sacrifices to be presented at one place, was happily adapted to prevent these consequences. 'Dæmonibus,' to demons. The original Hebrew term here rendered devils,' properly signifies hairy ones, or creatures rough, rugged, and shaggy in aspect; and hence is applied not only to he-goats, but to certain fabulous beings or sylvan gods, who were popularly | supposed to appear in the form of goats. Herodotus says that all goats were worshipped in Egypt, particularly the he-goat, and from these sprung Pan, Silenus, and the innumerable herd of imaginary beings, satyrs, dryads, fauns, | &c. all woodland gods, and held in veneration among the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. From this source too it is not unlikely that the popular representations of the devil in Christian countries, in which he is represented as having a goat-like form, with a tail, horns, and cloven feet, are borrowed. Such representations certainly bear a strong resemblance to what was fancied of the appearance of the ancient heathen Pan, whose name, from his striking terror into the popular mind, has given rise to our English word panic. The language would seem evidently to imply that the Israelites had been formerly, or during their residence in Egypt, addicted to the worship of The Eating of Blood forbidden. these fictitious deities. After whom 10. That eateth any manner of blood. they have gone a whoring. Chal.' With This prohibition is met with twice. whom they have erred or committed elsewhere in the Levitical law, Lev. idolatry.' This term is often employed 3. 17,-7. 26, besides its being found in in the Scriptures to denote idolatry, be- the precepts of Noah, Gen. 9. 4. It is The 11 o For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, p to make an o ver. 14. p Matt. 26. 28. Mark 14. 24. Rom. 3. 25, and 5. 9. Ephes. 1.7. Col. 1. 14, repeated again and again, and much stress laid upon it as a law that has more in it than would at first appear. The reason here annexed to it is considered below, in the note on the ensu ing verse. It is to be remarked, however, that the blood of clean fishes, of locusts, and of creeping things, is understood by the Jews to be excepted from this prohibition. -¶ I will even set my face against that soul, &c. Heb. 10 7000 nûthatti pânai, I will give | my face. Gr. επιστήσω το πρόσωπον μον. Chal. I will set mine anger against the man.' The original word for 'face' is often used by the sacred writers for unger,' as may be seen by the following passages: Gen. 33. 20, I will appease him' (Heb. 'I will appease his face')' Lam. 4. 15, The anger (Heb. face) of the Lord hath divided them.' Jer. 3. 12, 'And I will not cause mine anger (Heb. face) to fall upon you.' 1 Pet. 3. 12, The face (i. e. anger) of the Lord is against them that do evil.' 11. For the life of the flesh is in the | atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 20. Heb. 13. 12. 1 Pet. 1, 2. 1 John 1, 7. Rev. 1. 5. q Heb. 9. 22. strated by the following among other facts. If blood be taken from the arm in the most intense cold that the human body can suffer, it will raise the thermometer to the same height, as bloodtaken in the most sultry heat. Now it is known that living bodies alone have the power of resisting great degrees of heat and cold, and of maintaining in almost every situation, while in health, that temperature which we distinguish by the name of animal heat. But it is by no means necessary to insist on this as implied in the words of our text. The sacred scriptures have little to do with the absolute verities of natural science. These we are to ascertain from other sources, and establish by other evidence. See Note on Gen. 9. 4.T It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. By transgression a man forfeits his life to divine justice, and he must die did not mercy provide him a substitute. The life of a beast is appointed and accepted by God as a substitute for the sinner's life; but as this life is in the blood, and as the blood | כי נפש הבשר בדם הלא .blood. Heb ki nephesh habbûsâr baddom hi, for the life or soul of the flesh it is in the blood. | Gr. ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ πάσης σαρκὸς ἄιμα αύτου ¿ørw, for the life or soul of all flesh is the blood thereof. This was not perhaps intended to be affirmed as a strictly physiological fact, but simply to express what appears to be the truth, and what was popularly regarded as such. The seat of vitality was ostensibly in the blood, because if the blood was shed life became extinct. Yet it is not a little remarkable that the researches of modern anatomists and physiologists have brought them in the main to the same conclusion, namely, that the blood is actually possessed of a principle of vitality. This, it is said, is demon is the grand principle of vitality, therefore the blood is to be poured out upon the altar, and thus the life of the beast becomes a substitute for the life of the man. But this was a typical ordinance, having direct reference to the atonement of Christ. Christ not only died for sinners, but our redemption is ever ascribed to his blood: for in order to make a satisfactory atonement, he not only bowed his head upon the cross and gave up the ghost, but his side was opened, the pericardium and the heart evidently pierced, that the vital fluid might be poured out from the very seat of life, and that thus the blood which is the life should be shed to make expia. tion for the life of the soul. The forbid 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and tcover it with dust. 14 u For it is the life of all flesh, r ch. 7. 26. s Deut. 12. 16, 24, and 15. 23. t Ezek. 24. 7. u ver. 11, 12. Gen. 9. 4. Deut. 12. 23. ding the eating of blood therefore would naturally tend to beget a devout and reverent regard for that precious fluid which was visibly represented in the blood of the victims slain upon the Jew ish altar. 12. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, &c. Whatever other reasons might previously have existed for this prohibition (Gen. 9. 4), yet this is the reason why it is to be forbidden to the children of Israel, and to all that saw fit to adjoin themselves to the holy people. Additional Precepts in regard to Blood the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off, 15 And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, (whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger) y he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in x Exod. 22. 31. ch. 22. 8. Deut. 14. 21. Ezek. 4. 14, and 44. 31. y ch. 11. 25. z ch. 15. 5. the blood also conveyed the intimation that it should not be imputed as a matter of guilt to the shedder, as appears from the contrary, Job 16. 18, 'O earth, cover not thou my blood, and let my cry have no place.' Ezek. 24. 7, 8, For her blood is in the midst of her; she sets it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust; that it might cause fury to come up to take vengeance; I have set her blood upon the top of a rock that it should not be covered;' where the blood not covered, signifies a crying to God for vengeance. The Jews regard this as a very weighty precept, and appoint that the blood should be covered with these words: Blessed is he that hath sanctified us by his precepts, and commanded us to cover blood.' and the Carcasses of Beasts. 13. And whatsoever man there be, &c. In this and the subsequent verses the law given above respecting the use of blood of sacrificed beasts is extended to 15. That which died of itself, or that that of all other creatures common for | which was torn with beasts. This is food, whether wild or tame, but espe- still but the application of the main law cially such as were taken in hunting. in regard to blood; for in both cases, The blood was to be carefully drained the blood was retained in the body; from the body, and decorously covered hence the council at Jerusalem forbade over with earth.1.-¶ He shall even things strangled, as well as blood; pour out the blood thereof and cover it because in such beasts, the blood was with dust. Lest it should be licked up by coagulated in the veins and arteries. any other animal, which he would have them avoid, either because the taste of blood might generate a destructive thirst for it, or because he would not have any thing so sacred as blood exposed to profanation. The covering of -¶ He shall wash his clothes. In this case it is supposed that the person sinned ignorantly or through inadvertency, not of deliberation or set purpose; for any presumptuous sin was to be followed by exemplary judgments water, and be unclean until the CHAPTER XVIII. bathe his flesh, then a shall he bear his iniquity. a ch. 5. 1, and 7. 18, and 19. 8. Numb. 19. 20. those connexions which were lawful Both As the chosen and covenant tribes of Israel were soon to take up their journey to the land of Canaan, the inhabitants of which were to be exterminated for their multifarious iniquities in the sight of God, a recital is here made of some of those aggravated forms of wickedness which were rife among them, and which God had determined signally to punish. This is done not only to illustrate the justice of the divine proceedings in their excision, but also with a view to put the peculiar people themselves on their guard against yielding to the contagion of their pernicious example, and thus becoming As this is the only passage in the obuoxious to the same fearful retribu- compass of the whole Bible where any tions which were now about to be visit formal enactments are given on this ed upon the Canaanites. The particu- subject, this and the connected chapters lar class of abominations more espe- treating of this theme have always been cially pointed out in this chapter, and deemed of peculiar importance in their to which the brand-mark of the divine relations to the question of the lawful reprobation is so conspicuously affixed, degrees, within which the marriage conis that of incestuous connexions. Not nexion may now be formed by those who only had that abandoned race been make the law of God the great standard guilty of a total apostacy from the wor- of moral duty. But it is more especially ship of the true God, substituting in his with reference to the lawfulness of marroom the sun, and moon, and host of riage with a deceased wife's sister that heaven, and bowing down to stocks and the bearings of this chapter become stones and creeping things, but they had important to us under the gospel, and mingled with their idolatry every vice at the present time; as it is well known that could degrade human nature and that the occurrence of cases of that kind pollute society. In the black catalogue has often greatly agitated the religious of these, the abominations of lust stand communions to which the parties be pre-eminent; and whether in the form longed, and even at the present day, the of adultery, fornication, incest, sodomy, difficulty of effecting an entire unanim• or bestiality, they had now risen to a ity of sentiment among Christians appitch of enormity which the forbearance pears as great as ever. We can scarcely of heaven could tolerate no longer, and expect, indeed, within the limits which of which a shuddering dread was to be the nature of the present work will begotten in the minds of the people of allow, to bring the matter to a decisive the covenant. And in order that no issue, even if we were entirely confi possible plea of ignorance or uncer-dent on which side the truth lay, which tainty might be left in their minds as to we are forced to acknowledge we are not. The just decision of the question | find it subsequently transferred to relanecessarily involves the establishment tionship in the Arabic language; in of several great preliminary principles of interpretation, besides a display of the idiomatic usages of the Hebrew philologically exhibited, which cannot well be made satisfactory in a small compass. But as the subject is one on which the truth is perhaps to be reached only by the gradual accumulation of evidence, we venture with others to contribute our small quota of sugges. tion towards the solution of a very important point, not of criticism only, but also of casuistry. It will probably be seen that our leanings are to the side of the unlaw fulness of the connexion; but recent discussions have brought forth so strong an array of arguments in support of the opposite theory, that it seems, on the whole, no more than is due to the presentation of evidence on both sides, that we should at present hold our judgment in suspense, simply giving to the reader a succinct but faithful view of the principal reasonings relied upon by the ad vocates of each. which, though with a slight orthographical variation, that nearest relation is called Tair or Thsäir, whom the Hebrews denominate Goël. In this way, Sheer, even by itself, would sig. nify a relation. Basar, commonly rendered flesh, is among the Hebrews equivalent to body; and may thence have been applied to signify relationship. Thus, thou art my flesh, or body, (Gen. 29. 14), means thou art my near kinsman. When both words are put together, Sheer-basar, they may be rendered literally corporeal relation, or by a half Hebrew phrase, kinsman after the flesh. In their derivation, there are no farther mysteries concealed, nor any thing that can bring the point in question to a decision; and what marriages Moses has permitted or com manded, we cannot ascertain from Sheerbasar, frequent and extensive as is its use in his marriage-laws: but must determine, from his own ordinances, in which he distinctly mentions what Sheer-basar, that is, what relations, are forbidden to marry.' That the ideal con 1. The Meaning of the Phrase 'Near nexion of the term sheër, with flesh of Kin!' | is somewhat close is evident from the following instances; Ps. 73. 26, ' My sheëri) and my heart fail eth.' Ps. 78.20, Can he give bread also? Can he provide flesh ("XW sheër) for his people? Prov. 5. 11,' And thou mourn at the last when thy flesh and thy body (777 In the general enunciation of the law, v. 6, it is said, 'None of you shall ap-flesh ( proach to any that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness.' The original phrase is sheër besâro, 1101 180 remainder of his flesh, whereas in other cases, though not numerous, the term besârka u-sheërëka) are employed to signify kindred is consumed,' where however the original kârob, from 2p kârab, to draw nigh. for 'flesh' is ¬ bâsâr, and NZ sheër Michaelis' remarks on the terms in is rendered by 'body.' In a few inquestion (Comment. L. of M. Art. 102), stances, out of the present connexion, it are as follows:-'If the reader wishes is rendered, as here, by 'kin' or 'kinsto know what these words etymologi- man,' as Lev. 21. 2, 'But for his kin cally signify, I shall here just state to that is near unto him (pt 18w3 him my opinion, but without repeating 73 lishëro hakkârob ëlauv), for his the ground on which it rests. Sheër mother,' &c. Num. 27. 11, ' And if his means, (1.) a remnant; (2.) the rem- father have no brethren, then ye shall nant of a meal; (3.) a piece of any give his inheritance unto his kinsman thing eatable, such as flesh; (4.) a piece that is next to him (1738 1 1AVÍ of any thing in general. Hence we|lishëro hakkârob ëlauv), of his family,' |