Commentary on Leviticus, Book · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Ver. 1. Verſe 1 IF a ſoul ſin.] In the manner following.
And hear the voice of ſwearing, and is a witneſs.] Being adjured in the Name of God, when he is called to be a Witneſs in a Cauſe, to ſpeak the Truth. For Judges had this power, to uſe ſuch Adjurations, that they might either draw a Confeſſion from an accuſed Perſon, or a faithful Teſtimony from a Witneſs. Of the former of which there is a ſolemn Form remaining in Scripture, 1 Kings XXII. 16. 2 Chron. XVIII. 15. as Grotius hath obſerved upon XXVI Matth. 63. And Dr. Hammond, upon the ſame place, hath obſerved inſtances of the latter, 1 Kings VII. 31. XXIX Prov. 24. And Micah's Mother ſeems by her own Authority to have adjured her Family, as they dreaded the Vengeance of the Divine Majeſty, to diſcover if they knew any thing of the Eleven hundred Shekels of Silver, which had been ſtoln from her, XVII Judg. 2. In all which Caſes, Men were bound to anſwer, as much as if they had taken a ſolemn Oath ſo to do. Inſomuch that our bleſſed LORD himſelf, being thus adjured, made an Anſwer to the Court of Judgment, though before he had ſtood ſilent.
Whether he hath ſeen or known of it.] Whether he can ſay any thing of the Matter in queſtion; either from his own Knowledge, or from the Information of credible Perſons.
If he do not utter it.] Declare what he knows, being thus adjured.
Then he ſhall bear his iniquity.] Let him not think it is no offence to ſuppreſs the Truth, when he is ſo ſolemnly admoniſhed to declare it; but offer ſuch a Sacrifice for his ſin, as is preſcribed v. 1. which belongs to all the following Caſes. The Jews make four ſorts of Oaths, in their Courts, or commerce one with another; as Mr. Selden hath obſerved out of their Writers, (L. II. de Synedr. cap. 11. n. 8.) which are, raſh Oaths, vain Oaths, (of which they alſo make four ſorts) Oaths about Truſts (mentioned VI. 2, 3.) and this, which they call the Oath of Teſtimony; which they ſay every Man was bound to give before the Sanhedrim, when he was required. With this diſtinction between Capital and Pecuniary Cauſes, that in the latter a Man was not bound to come and teſtifie, unleſs he was cited by the Plaintiff, or by the Court; but in Capital Cauſes, and in ſuch things as the Law prohibited, (as if a Man ſaw another ſmite his Neighbour) he was bound to come of his own accord, without any Summons, and give his Teſtimony in Court. Yet in this they make ſome difference, as may be ſeen in R. Levi Barcelonita, Praecept. CXX. They who would ſee more of theſe ſeveral ſorts of Oaths among the Jews, may find them conſider'd in Sam. Petitus his Var. Lectiones, cap. 16. And ſuch a Law as this there was anciently in other Countries, that he who ſaw a Crime committed, if he could not hinder it, ſhould be bound, at leaſt, to proſecute the Malefactor. So the Egyptian Lawgiver ſaith concerning Theft, which a Man ſaw committed, foreign, to proſecute the Law againſt that Crime. So Plato uſes the ſame word foreign, L. IV. de Legibus, ſaying, that he who knew of ſuch a Fact, or had certain Information of it, foreign, and doth not proſecute the Perſon that did it, foreign, let him be liable to the ſame puniſhment. See Henr. Stephanus his Praefat. ad Fontes Juris Civilis.
Ver. 2. Verſe 2 Or if a ſoul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcaſe of an unclean beast, &c.] The Hebrew Doctors expound this of ſuch Perſons, as having touched any of the unclean things, which are mentioned in this Verſe, and in the next, came into the Sanctuary, or did eat of the holy things. Which they gather out of VII. 20, 21. and XIX Numb. 20. where cutting off is threatned to thoſe, who knowingly were ſo guilty. For otherwiſe, it was ſufficient for a Man's Expiation, who touched any unclean thing, to waſh himſelf; and his uncleanneſs laſted only till the Evening. See Chap. XI. and Numb. XIX. But why may it not be meant of thoſe, who neglected to waſh themſelves? Who were to expiate that neglect by a Sacrifice.
He alſo ſhall be unclean and guilty.] Obliged to offer the Sacrifice preſcribed (v. 6.) for eating that which is holy (ſaith Raſi) or coming into the Sanctuary.
Ver. 3. Verſe 3 Or if he touch the uncleanneſs of man, &c.] Such uncleanneſſes as are mentioned in the XIIth, XIIIth, and XVth Chapters of this Book.
And if it be hid from him, when he knoweth of it, then he ſhall be guilty.] The words may be tranſlated, Whether he did it ignorantly, or had ſome knowledge of it, and yet offended, he ſhall be obliged to offer the Sacrifice mentioned v. 6.
Ver. 4. Verſe 4 Or if a ſoul ſwear.] This the Hebrew Doctors expound of that ſort of Oath, which they call futil or raſh: when a Man ſaith he hath done, or will do or not do, a thing that is in his power to do.
Pronouncing with his mouth.] It was to be uttered in words, and not meerly thought in his mind.
To do evil or good.] That he hath done a thing, or not done it, of whatſoever kind it be; or that he will, or will not do it. For theſe four kinds of Oaths, of this ſort, the Hebrew Doctors make, two about things paſt; and two about things to come, (See Selden. de Synedr. L. II. cap. 11. n. 8.) As if he ſwear that he did eat, or he did not eat of ſuch a meat; did talk, or not talk with Reuben or Simeon, &c. Raſi thinks by doing good, is meant ſomething for his own advantage; and conſequently by doing evil, we are to underſtand afflicting himſelf, or puniſhing his Servant, &c. But it may as well be underſtood generally of all things whatſoever, which are comprehended under the name of good and evil.
And it be hid from him.] He did not rightly underſtand, or conſider the thing about which he ſware; whether it was in his power, for inſtance, to do what he ſwore he would do; or whether he could lawfully do it; or if through forgetfulneſs he omitted to do what he might have done. Some interpret theſe and the following words, as thoſe of the foregoing Verſe.
He ſhall be guilty in one of theſe.] Obliged to offer a Sacrifice (as it follows v. 6.) if he have ſworn raſhly in any of the foregoing inſtances.
Ver. 5. Verſe 5 And it ſhall be, when he ſhall be guilty in one of theſe things, that he ſhall confeſs that he hath ſinned in that thing.] When he laid his hand upon the Head of his Sacrifice, this Confeſſion of his Offence, it is likely, was made; without which his Sacrifice would have been of no avail: So all the Hebrew Doctors underſtand it: Particularly Abarbanel, upon the XVIth Chapter of this Book, ſaith, That Confeſſion was neceſſary to be added to every Sacrifice for ſin. For what is here commanded in this Caſe, they reſolve belongs to all Sin-offerings, and Treſpaſs-offerings alſo. And indeed it was a Notion among the Heathen themſelves, that an Offering without Prayer, was to no purpoſe: Quippe victimas caedi ſine precatione, non videtur referre, nec Deos ritè conſuli, as Pliny ſpeaks, L. XXVIII. Nat. Hiſt. cap. 2. and every one knows that Confeſſion was a part of Prayer. See Dr. Owtram de Sacrificiis, L. I. cap. 15. n. 9.
Ver. 6. Verſe 6 And he ſhall bring his treſpaſs-offering unto the LORD.] There is a difference between a Sinoffering (called Chattah) and a Treſpaſs-offering (called Aſcham) as is plain in the latter part of this Chapter, compared with this. But here in this place, they are not diſtinguiſhed, for the name of Treſpaſs-offering is given to that, which was really a Sin-offering; as appears from the latter end of this Verſe, and from the two next, where this Offering is expreſly called a Sin-offering.
For his ſin which he hath ſinned.] In any of the four fore-mentioned Caſes; either by polluting the Sanctuary, or eating holy things, or a raſh Oath, or by refuſing to give his Teſtimony, being adjured by the Court of Judgment to do it. Thus R. Levi of Barcelona explains this, Praecept. CXXI.
A female from the flock, a Lamb or a Kid of the Goats for a ſin-offering.] As the Hebrews call the Sin-offering mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, v. 27. a fixed Sacrifice; ſo they call this higher or lower, being brought according to every Man's Faculty or Ability; ſome more, ſome leſs, as the fore-named Author, and many other of their Doctors obſerve; and is plain of it ſelf from the following Verſes.
And the Priest ſhall make an atonement for him, concerning his ſin.] By ſprinkling the Blood, and burning the Fat of the Sacrifice, as is directed IV. 34, 35.
Ver. 7. Verſe 7 And if he be not able to bring a Lamb.] See the mercy of God, ſaith the ſame R. Levi, who was pleaſed to exact ſuch ſmall Puniſhments for theſe Sins, becauſe it was very eaſie for Men to fall into them. For we are more prone to offend in word, then in deed: and without great Caution it was ſcarce poſſible not to fall into ſuch Legal Pollutions, as required this Expiation.
Then he ſhall bring for his treſpaſs which he hath committed, two Turtle Doves, or two young Pigeons, unto the LORD.] Who, though he would not exact an heavy Puniſhment of them for theſe Offences, yet would not ſuffer them to eſcape altogether unpuniſhed; that they might not be preſumptuous, but uſe due care and caution in their words and actions. So the ſame R. Levi repreſents the ſenſe of this Law, as if the LORD had ſaid, I would not have ſuch things done; but if any Man by frailty commit them, let him repent with all his might, and ſet a guard upon himſelf; and let him offer a Sacrifice, which may imprint the remembrance of his Guilt upon his heart; and preſerve him that he may not hereafter offend.
The one for a ſin-offering, and the other for a burntoffering.] Firſt he was to have his Peace made with God, by a Sin-offering; and then his Burnt-offering, or his Gift, might be accepted, as Raſi obſerves; and is expreſly ordered in the next Verſe, The Priest ſhall offer that which is for the Sin-offering first.
Ver. 8. Verſe 8 And wring off his head from his neck, &c.] Or rather, nip it off with his Nail (as the Jews explain it, See I. 15.) ſo as not quite to ſeparate it from the Body. For that had been to make the Sacrifice contemptible, (as R. Levi of Barcelona gives the reaſon of it, Praecept. CXXVIII.) the Bird looking more handſome with its Neck ſtill joyned to the Body, than without it. And it was fit the Sacrifice of a poor Man ſhould be as decent, as poſſible; it being ſufficient he thus ſuffered, without increaſing his Affliction by the mean and abject form of his Sacrifice.
Ver. 9. Verſe 9 And he ſhall ſprinkle of the blood of the Sinoffering, &c.] Some of the Blood, which ran out of it ſelf, as the Prieſt held it by the Neck, where he nipt it, he was to ſprinkle upon the ſide of the Altar. And then he was to preſs out the reſt of the Blood (when as much was ran out, as would of it ſelf, by that nip) at the bottom of the Altar; where they were wont to pour out the Blood of the Sin-offering, IV. 7, 18, 25, 34.
It is a Sin-offering.] Therefore the Blood was there preſſed out: whereas in Burnt-offerings of a Bird, we read only of preſſing or ſqueezing out the Blood at the ſide of the Altar, I. 15. It is not ſaid what was to be done with the Fleſh; but it is plain from VI. 26. that the Prieſt was to have it; the Blood only being offered to God.
Ver. 10. Verſe 10 And he ſhall offer the ſecond for a burntoffering, according to the manner.] Preſcribed in the firſt Chapter, v. 15.
And the Prieſt ſhall make an atonement for him, &c.] Some gather from hence that the Burnt-offering was alſo an Expiatory Sacrifice. But it is ſo plainly diſtinguiſhed from it, that theſe words ſeem to me, to relate only to the foregoing Offering, v. 8, 9. Though this may be concluded from hence, that the Sin-offering was not accepted for his Expiation, unleſs this Burnt-offering followed, as a Thankful Acknowledgment made to God for his Goodneſs.
Ver. 11. Verſe 11 But if he be not able to bring two turtle Doves, or two young Pigeons.] This was ſtill a more merciful Proviſion for the Poor; who were not to be ſo ambitious of offering a Beaſt or a Bird, as not to content themſelves with offering the ſmalleſt thing that God would accept. So R. Levi of Barcelona obſerves, that God having ſuch Compaſſion on Mens Poverty, it did not become them to ſtrain themſelves to offer more than they were able; for ſo they might have been tempted to ſtealth. Yet if after a Man had ſet aſide a little Money to buy this quantity of fine Flour, his Eſtate was bettered, he was then bound (as Maimonides ſaith in the Treatiſe called Schegagoth) to add ſo much to it, as would buy the Birds before preſcribed. And in like manner if he had deſigned to buy Birds, and on a ſudden grew richer, he was to procure a Lamb or a Kid. On the contrary, if a Man had ſet apart Money to buy a Bullock for his Sin-offering, and unexpectedly grew poor, he might buy two Turtles or young Pigeons, and by them redeem his Money ſo conſecrated, &c. cap. 10.
Then he that hath ſinned, ſhall bring for his offering a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, &c.] Neither more nor leſs; which was but a ſmall quantity, (See XVI Exod. 36.) becauſe God would not have his Creature oppreſſed, as the ſame Author obſerves, Praecept. CXXIX.
He ſhall put no oil upon it, neither ſhall he put any frankincenſe thereon.] In commiſeration of his Poverty, God required only a little Flour, which every one might eaſily get to offer, without any Oil to it, which was more coſtly; and alſo had ſomething of Magnificence in it, (Kings and Prieſts being anointed) and therefore not becoming the meanneſs, or the grief and humility of the Perſon that brought this Offering. For which reaſon Frankincenſe was alſo omitted, being a pleaſant thing; and not fit to be added to an Offering for ſin: which was offenſive to God. To this purpoſe the ſame R. Levi, in the ſame place. And we find this imitated alſo by the Heathen; for Pliny ſaith, in his Preface to Veſpaſian before his Natural Hiſtory, Mola tantum ſalſa litant, qui non habent thura.
Ver. 12. Verſe 12 Then ſhall he bring it to the Prieſt.] Confeſſing his Sin to him (as is ordered v. 5.) for which he deſired this Offering might be accepted.
And the Prieſt ſhall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof.] For an Acknowledgment of his Fault, and as a Caution to him hereafter.
Ver. 13. Verſe 13 And the Priest ſhall make an atonement for him, as touching the ſin that he hath ſinned, in one of theſe.] With one of theſe three fore-mentioned Sacrifices: either with a Lamb; or with two Turtles or young Pigeons; or with fine Flour. For as Raſi hath obſerved, there are three ſorts of Men; Rich, Poor, and very Poor: and ſo three ſort of Offerings are preſcribed in this Chapter, ſutable to each of their Abilities.
And the remnant ſhall be the Prieſts, as a meat-offering.] See Chapter the ſecond, v. 2, 3. where the whole Meat-offering (except one handful) is given to the Prieſt: who had nothing at all of ſome of the Sin-offerings, mentioned in the foregoing Chapter (v. 12, 21.) which were intirely conſumed.
Ver. 14. Verſe 14 And the LORD ſpake unto Moſes ſaying.] Here begin the Orders which were given to Moſes, about another ſort of Sacrifice, near of kin to the former: but delivered, it is likely, at ſome other time; after he had written down the foregoing Laws about Sin-offerings. See IV. 1.
Ver. 15. Verſe 15 If a ſoul commit a treſpaſs.] In the Hebrew this is a different phraſe, from what hath been hitherto uſed, ſignifying another ſort of Guilt.
And ſin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD.] By applying to his own private uſe any thing that was dedicated to God, (as Maimonides expounds it in his More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 46.) which might be committed in the payment of Tithes, and in Firſt-fruits, and the Firſt-born of Cattle, or medling with that part of the Sacrifice which belonged to the Prieſt alone. Which things he that committed preſumptuouſly, was to be cut off, XV Numb. 30. but if ignorantly, he was to do as here is directed in this Verſe. But theſe words ſeem to be particularly reſtrained to the laſt of thoſe things now mentioned (eating any part of the Sacrifice which belonged to the Prieſt alone, XXII. 14.) and the end of this Law (as R. Levi Barcelonita ſpeaks, Praecept. CXXII.) was to excite fear and reverence in all thoſe who approached unto holy things.
Then he ſhall bring for his treſpaſs unto the LORD, a Ram without blemiſh out of the flocks.] As a Sheep was a more noble Species among Creatures than a Goat; ſo a Ram was of a greater value among Sheep, than a Female: and therefore this Sacrifice was more coſtly than the Sin-offering mentioned v. 6.
With thy eſtimation.] Beſides his Sacrifice, he was to make Satisfaction in Money, according as the Prieſt ſhould eſteem the damage. For that's the meaning of with thy eſtimation; according to the value thou ſhalt ſet upon the thing, which he applied to his own uſe.
By ſhekels of ſilver.] At leaſt two Shekels, as the Jewiſh Doctors reſolve.
After the ſhekel of the Sanctuary.] See XXX Exod. 13. The Jews were thus confined to theſe Rites, and ſuch as are mentioned v. 8, 9. in the reſt of theſe Preſcriptions, that there might be no room for Idolatrous Ceremonies; nor might Men among themſelves be left at liberty to invent impious or frivolous ways of Worſhip: and that the Obedience of good Men might be alſo exerciſed in theſe minute matters; and the contempt of wicked People be the more apparent, in refuſing to comply with theſe known Laws of God.
For a treſpaſs-offering.] The Hebrew word Aſcham, which we tranſlate Treſpaſs-offering, is ſo near of kin to Chattah, which we tranſlate Sin-offering, that one of them is ſometimes uſed for the other, as I obſerved upon v. 6. yet there is a real difference between them; though it be not eaſie to determine wherein it conſiſts. For the greateſt Men differ in their opinion, about the quality of the Offences, for which theſe two kinds of Sacrifices were to be offered: Some ſaying that the Offences for which Aſcham was offered, were inferior to thoſe for which Chattah was offered; which is the Opinion of Maimonides in his More Nevochim, P. III. cap. 46. Others, on the contrary, think that the Offences which were expiated by Aſcham, were more grievous than thoſe expiated by Chattah; which is the Opinion of no leſs Man than the deſervedly admired Bochartus, in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. II. cap. 33. Where he adds, that the former ſort of ſins were committed knowingly; the other only ignorantly. For ſo the LXX. tranſlate Chattah by foreign, which ſeems to denote a Fault committed by Error and Miſtake: but Aſcham by foreign, which carries in it the Notion of ſomething premeditated and deſigned. But this is directly contrary to the very words of Moſes here in this Verſe; which expreſly ſpeak of a Treſpaſs committed through ignorance. Aben-Ezra therefore diſtinguiſhes theſe two much better, making Chattah to ſignifice a Sacrifice which was made for the purging Offences, committed through ignorance of the Law: and Aſcham, for ſuch as were committed through forgetfulneſs of the Law. But as he gives no proof of this, ſo he was ſenſible, it was liable to exception; there being one of this ſort of Sacrifices, mentioned v. 17. which he ſaw could not be comprehended under this Rule. Others therefore think the former hath reſpect to Offences againſt God; and the latter to thoſe againſt Men; not obſerving that the very ſame ſort of ſin, which when it was known is called Chattah, when it was doubtful, is called Aſcham. From whence a very learned Perſon of our own, (now with God) who had much and long conſidered this matter, concludes, That an Offence was peculiarly called Aſcham, (which is a name for the Sin as well as for the Sacrifice, as Chattah alſo is) about which either a Man was dubious (as in the following Verſe) or did a manifeſt damage to other Men. There being no Aſcham (or Treſpaſs-offering) commanded to be offered by the Law, but for ſuch Offences as were ſo committed againſt God, that their Neighbours alſo were injured by them. As in the Caſe of thoſe who did eat holy things, here mentioned, whereby the Prieſts were damaged: and of thoſe mentioned VI. 2, 3, 4. and ſuch as lay with a Bond-woman betrothed to another, XIX. 20, 21. Which are all the Caſes belonging to this matter; excepting that of the Nazarite defiled by the dead, VI Numb. 12. and of the Leper, XIV. 12. who were to be purged with a Sin-offering, as well as with a Treſpaſs-offering: and therefore not to be conſidered in this matter. See Dr. Owtram, L. I. de Sacrificiis, cap. 13. n. 8. and Samuel Petitus his Variae Lectiones, cap. 22. who hath ſaid the ſame, but not ſo fully and diſtinctly. If this do not ſatisfie, yet it is plain the Sacrifices which go by this Name of Treſpaſs-offerings, and the Rites alſo about them, were ſo different, that they are ſufficient to diſtinguiſh them from the other. For none but Rams and Male-Lambs were admitted for Treſpaſs-offerings; which were not uſed at all, in any Sin-offerings. And the Blood of the Sin-offerings was put upon the Horns of the Altar (as was noted in the foregoing Chapter, v. 7, 18, 25.) but that of the Treſpaſs-offerings was ſprinkled round about upon the Altar, VII. 2. Sin-offerings alſo were offered for the whole Congregation of Iſrael, IV. 13. but Treſpaſs-offerings only for private Perſons, which made Bonſrerius (I ſuppoſe) after a long diſcuſſion of this matter, to conclude, That the difference betwen Sin and Treſpaſs, conſiſted only in the Sacrifices which were offered for them. See him upon the IVth Chapter of this Book, v. 1.
Ver. 16. Verſe 16 And he ſhall make amends for the harm he hath done in holy things, and ſhall add a fifth part thereunto, &c.] Beſides the Compenſation mentioned in the foregoing Verſe, for the damage that was done, according to the valuation made by the Prieſt, there was a fifth part more to be added thereunto, and given to the Prieſt who had ſuffered the damage.
And the Priest ſhall make an atonement for him with the Ram of the treſpaſs-offering, and it ſhall be forgiven him.] The Atonement was not made, nor Forgiveneſs obtained, till full Satisfaction for the wrong had been made.
Ver. 17. Verſe 17 And if a ſoul ſin, and commit any of theſe things, &c.] i. e. did eat any of the holy things before-mentioned; which God forbad any but the Prieſts to eat.
Though he wist it not.] i. e. Be not certain whether they were holy or no. For the Hebrews generally call this Aſcham Talui, a dubious Treſpaſs-offering: being in a matter about which a Man was in Suſpenſe, whether he had offended or not.
Yet he is guilty, and ſhall bear his iniquity.] He ſhall be obliged to offer this ſort of Sacrifice. Which was ordained (ſaith R. Levi Barcelon. Praecept. CXXIII.) to make Men cautious, and fear to ſin; and to attend diligently in all their Actions, that they tranſgreſſed not the Laws of God.
Ver. 18. Verſe 18 And he ſhall bring a Ram without blemiſh, out of the flock, with thy eſtimation, &c.] The Offering before appointed, v. 15, &c. with this difference only, that no fifth part was in this Caſe to be added; becauſe it was not certain whether he had tranſgreſſed or no.
The Priest ſhall make an atonement for him, concerning his ignorance wherein he erred, and wist it not.] Did not know whether he had offended or not: which diſtinguiſhes this from the Sin of Ignorance mentioned v. 15.
And it ſhall be forgiven him.] But if he afterwards came to have a certain knowledge of his Offence, he was not excuſed by this dubious Offering (as Raſi obſerves) but was bound alſo to offer a Sin-offering.
Ver. 19. Verſe 19 It is a treſpaſs-offering.] In this caſe a Sacrifice muſt be offered, as well as in a certain Treſpaſs.
He hath certainly treſpaſſed against the LORD.] The words in the Hebrew are, Aſcham aſcham lajhova; which, I think, ſhould be tranſlated, A Treſpaſs-offering certainly unto the LORD. That is, in this doubtful caſe, let him take a ſure courſe, by offering the Sacrifice here preſcribed. For though neither this ſort of Sacrifices, nor Sin-offerings, were to be voluntarily (which was proper only to whole Burnt-offerings and Peace-offerings) yet the very ſuſpicion of a Guilt required a Sacrifice. As for all thoſe Offences which might be committed by Men, who had no ſenſe nor ſuſpition of them, they were expiated by the Sacrifices which were offered for the whole Congregation, at certain ſtated times: but no particular Perſon was to offer either Sin-offering, or Treſpaſs-offering of his own accord; unleſs he knew or feared he had contracted ſome Guilt.
I cannot think fit to conclude this Chapter, without taking notice how Jonathan paraphraſes theſe laſt words of it; who inſtead of ſaying, he hath treſpaſſed (as it is commonly tranſlated) againſt the LORD, ſaith againſt the Name of the Word of the LORD. Which is an obſervation that might have been made in my Notes upon the two foregoing Books of Moſes; where many ſuch paſſages occur, which I did not mention. And I ſhould not have done it now (being unwilling to ſwell this Commentary with any thing that doth not tend to the explaining the ſenſe of the Text) did not the impious Pamphlets that have lately been ſpread abroad, againſt the Doctrine of the ever Bleſſed Trinity, made it neceſſary for me to take this occaſion to aſſert, That this Doctrine was not unknown to the ancient Jews; as appears even from the frequent mention of the Word of the LORD in the Chaldee Paraphraſts, where the Hebrew hath only JEHOVAH (or the LORD): For which I can ſee no reaſon at all, if there had not been a Notion among them, of more Perſons than One, who were JEHOVAH. It doth not always indeed carry this ſignification in it; but there are very many places where, by the WORD of the LORD, cannot be meant a word ſpoken by the LORD, or any thing elſe, but a perſon ſpeaking or acting, &c. who is the LORD. There is a famous inſtance of it in XXVIII Gen. 20, 21. where Jacob's Vow is thus tranſlated by Onkelos: Jacob vowed a vow, ſaying, if the WORD of the LORD will be with me, and keep me, &c. then ſhall the WORD of the LORD be my God. Where the WORD of the LORD is ſo plainly made the Object of his Adoration, that it evidently ſhows, they had a Notion in thoſe days when Onkelos lived (which was about our Saviour's time) of more Perſons than One, who was the LORD. The Hieruſalem Targum alſo ſpeaks this ſo clearly, that one cannot but be ſomething amazed to meet with ſuch Expreſſions in it, as thoſe upon III Gen. 22. The WORD of the LORD ſaid, Behold, Adam, whom I have created, is my only begotten in this World; as I am the only begotten in the Heavens above. Which may fairly induce a belief, that St. John uſed the known Language of thoſe times, when he declared our bleſſed Saviour's Godhead, under the Name of the WORD; who was in the beginning with God, and was God, I Joh. 1.