Leviticus 11


Laws concerning clean and unclean animals, 1, 2.

Of QUADRUPEDS, those are clean which divide the hoof and

chew the cud, 3.

Those to be reputed unclean which do not divide the hoof,

though they chew the cud, 4-6.

Those to be reputed unclean also which, though they divide the

hoof, do not chew the cud, 7.

Whosoever eats their flesh, or touches their carcasses, shall

be reputed unclean, 8.

Of FISH, those are clean, and may be eaten which have fins and

scales, 9.

Those which have not fins and scales to be reputed unclean,


Of FOWLS, those which are unclean, 13-21.

Of INSECTS, the following may be eaten: the bald locust,

beetle, and grasshopper, 22.

All others are unclean and abominable, their flesh not to be

eaten, nor their bodies touched, 23-25.

Farther directions relative to unclean beasts, 26-28.

Of REPTILES, and some small quadrupeds, those which are

unclean, 29, 39.

All that touch them shall be unclean, 31;

and the things touched by their dead carcasses are unclean

also, 32-35.

Large fountains, or pits of water, are not defiled by their

carcasses, provided a part of the water be drawn out, 36.

Nor do they defile seed by accidentally touching it, provided

the water which has touched their flesh do not touch or moisten

the seed, 37, 38.

A beast that dieth of itself is unclean, and may not be touched

or eaten, 39, 40.

All creeping things are abominable, 41-44.

The reason given for these laws, 45-47.


Verse 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses] In the preceding

chapter the priests are expressly forbidden to drink wine; and

the reason for this law is given also, that they might be able at

all times to distinguish between clean and unclean, and be

qualified to teach the children of Israel all the statutes which

the Lord had spoken, Le 10:10, 11; for as inebriation unfits a

person for the regular performance of every function of life, it

must be especially sinful in those who minister in holy things,

and to whom the teaching of the ignorant, and the cure of souls

in general, are intrusted.

Scheuchzer has remarked that no Christian state has made any

civil law against drunkenness, (he must only mean the German

states, for we have several acts of parliament against it in

England,) and that it is only punished by contempt. "Custom,"

says he, "that tyrant of the human race, not only permits it, but

in some sort authorizes the practice, insomuch that we see

priests and ministers of the Church ascend the pulpit in a state

of intoxication, judges seat themselves upon the benches,

physicians attend their patients, and others attempt to perform

the different avocations of life, in the same disgraceful

state."-Physic. Sacr., vol. iii., p. 64.

This is a horrible picture of German manners; and while we

deplore the extensive ravages made by this vice, and the disgrace

with which its votaries are overwhelmed, we have reason to thank

God that it very rarely has ever appeared in the pulpit, and

perhaps was never once seen upon the bench, in our own country.

Having delivered the law against drinking wine, Moses proceeds

to deliver a series of ordinances, all well calculated to prevent

the Israelites from mixing with the surrounding nations, and

consequently from being contaminated by their idolatry. In chap.

xi. he treats of unclean MEATS. In chap. xii., xiii., xiv., and

xv., he treats of unclean PERSONS, GARMENTS, and DWELLINGS. In

chap. xvi. he treats of the uncleanness of the PRIESTS and the

PEOPLE, and prescribes the proper expiations and sacrifices for

both. In chap. xvii. he continues the subject, and gives

particular directions concerning the mode of offering, &c. In

chap. xviii. he treats of unclean matrimonial connections. In

chap. xix. he repeats sundry laws relative to these subjects, and

introduces some new ones. In chap. xx. he mentions certain

uncleannesses practised among the idolatrous nations, and

prohibits them on pain of death. In chap. xxi. he treats of the

mourning, marriages, and personal defects of the priests, which

rendered them unclean. And in chap. xxii. he speaks of unclean

sacrifices, or such as should not be offered to the Lord. After

this, to the close of the book, many important and excellent

political and domestic regulations are enjoined, the whole

forming an eccleslastico-political system superior to any thing

the world ever saw.

Bishop Wilson very properly observes that, "by these laws of

clean and unclean animals, &c., God did keep this people

separated from the idolatrous world: and this is a standing

proof, even to the present day, of the Divine authority of these

Scriptures; for no power or art of man could have obliged so

great and turbulent a nation to submit to such troublesome

precepts as the Jews always have submitted to, had they not been

fully convinced, from the very first, that the command was from

God, and that it was to be obeyed at the peril of their souls."

Verse 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed]

These two words mean the same thing-a divided hoof, such as that

of the ox, where the hoof is divided into two toes, and each toe

is cased with horn.

Cheweth the cud] Ruminates; casts up the grass, &c., which had

been taken into the stomach for the purpose of mastication.

Animals which chew the cud, or ruminate, are provided with two,

three or four stomachs. The ox has four: in the first or

largest, called the ventriculus or paunch, the food is collected

without being masticated, the grass, &c., being received into it

as the beast crops it from the earth. The food, by the force of

the muscular coats of this stomach, and the liquors poured in, is

sufficiently macerated; after which, formed into small balls, it

is thrown up by the oesophagus into the mouth, where it is made

very small by mastication or chewing, and then sent down into the

second stomach, into which the oesophagus or gullet opens, as

well as into the first, ending exactly where the two stomachs

meet. This is what is termed chewing the cud. The second

stomach, which is called the reticulum, honeycomb, bonnet, or

king's hood, has a great number of small shallow cells on its

inward surface, of a pentagonal or five-sided form, exactly like

the cells in a honey-comb; in this the food is farther macerated,

and then pushed onward into the third stomach, called the omasum

or many-plies, because its inward surface is covered with a great

number of thin membraneous partitions. From this the food passes

into the fourth stomach, called the abomasum, or rede. In this

stomach it is digested, and from the digested mass the chyle is

formed, which, being absorbed by the lacteal vessels, is

afterwards thrown into the mass of blood, and becomes the

principle of nutrition to all the solids and fluids of the body.

The intention of rumination, or chewing the cud, seems to be,

that the food may be sufficiently comminuted, that, being more

fully acted on by the stomachs, it may afford the greatest

possible portion of nutritive juices.

The word cud is probably not originally Saxon, though found in

that language in the same signification in which it is still

used. Junius, with great show of probability, derives it from

the Cambro-British chwyd, a vomit, as it is the ball of food

vomited, or thrown up, from the first stomach or paunch through

the oesophagus into the mouth, which is called by this name.

Those who prefer a Saxon derivation may have it in the verb

[Anglo-Saxon] whence our word chew; and so cud might be

considered a contraction of chewed, but this is not so likely as

the preceding.

Verse 5. The coney] shaphan, not the rabbit, but

rather a creature nearly resembling it, which abounds in Judea,

Palestine, and Arabia, and is called by Dr. Shaw daman Israel,

and by Mr. Bruce ashkoko. As this creature nearly resembles the

rabbit, with which Spain anciently abounded, Bochart supposes

that the Phoenicians might have given it the name of

spaniah, from the multitude of shephanim (or spanim,

as others pronounce it) which were found there. Hence the emblem

of Spain is a woman sitting with a rabbit at her feet. See a

coin of Hadrian in Scheuchzer.

Verse 6. The hare] arnebeth, as Bochart and others

suppose, from arah, to crop, and nib, the

produce of the ground, these animals being remarkable for

destroying the fruits of the earth. That they are notorious for

destroying the tender blade of the young corn, is well known. It

is very likely that different species of these animals are

included under the general terms shaphan, and

arnebeth, for some travellers have observed that there are four

or five sorts of these animals, which are used for food in the

present day in those countries. See Harmer, vol. iii., p. 331,

edit. 1808. Some think the mountain rat, marmot, squirrel, and

hedgehog, may be intended under the word shaphan.

Verse 7. And the swine] chazir, one of the most

gluttonous, libidinous, and filthy quadrupeds in the universe;

and, because of these qualities, sacred to the Venus of the

Greeks and Romans, and the Friga of our Saxon ancestors; and

perhaps on these accounts forbidden, as well as on account of its

flesh being strong and difficult to digest, affording a very

gross kind of aliment, apt to produce cutaneous, scorbutic, and

scrofulous disorders, especially in hot climates.

Verse 9. Whatsoever hath fins and scales] Because these, of

all the fish tribe, are the most nourishing; the others which are

without scales, or whose bodies are covered with a thick

glutinous matter, being in general very difficult of digestion.

Verse 13. And these-among the fowls-the eagle] nesher,

from nashar, to lacerate, cut, or tear to pieces; hence the

eagle, a most rapacious bird of prey, from its tearing the flesh

of the animals it feeds on; and for this purpose birds of prey

have, in general, strong, crooked talons and a hooked beak. The

eagle is a cruel bird, exceedingly ravenous, and almost


The ossifrage] Or bone-breaker, from os, a bone, and

frango, I break, because it not only strips off the flesh, but

breaks the bone in order to extract the marrow. In Hebrew it is

called peres, from paras, to break or divide in two,

and probably signifies that species of the eagle anciently known

by the name of ossifraga, and which we render ossifrage.

Ospray] ozniyah, from azan, to be strong,

vigorous; generally supposed to mean the black eagle, such as

that described by Homer, Iliad. lib. xxi., ver. 252.



"Having the rapidity of the black eagle, that bird of prey, at

once the swiftest and the strongest of the feathered race."

Among the Greeks and Romans the eagle was held sacred, and is

represented as carrying the thunderbolts of Jupiter. This occurs

so frequently, and is so well known, that references are almost

needless. See Scheuchzer.

Verse 14. The vulture] daah, from the root to fly,

and therefore more probably the kite or glede, from its remarkable

property of gliding or sailing with expanded wings through the

air. The daah is a different bird from the daiyah,

which signifies the vulture. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 195.

The kite] aiyah, thought by some to be the vulture,

by others the merlin. Parkhurst thinks it has its name from the

root avah, to covet, because of its rapaciousness; some

contend that the kite is meant. That it is a species of the

hawk, most learned men allow. See Bochart, vol. iii., col. 192.

Verse 15. Every raven] oreb, a general term

comprehending the raven, crow, rook, jackdaw, and magpie.

Verse 16. The owl] bath haiyaanah, the daughter

of vociferation, the female ostrich, probably so called from the

noise they make. "In the lonesome part of the night," says Dr.

Shaw, "the ostriches frequently make a very doleful and hideous

noise, sometimes resembling the roar of the lion; at other times,

the hoarser voice of the bull or ox." He adds, "I have heard

them groan as if in the deepest agonies."-Travels, 4to edition,

p. 455. The ostrich is a very unclean animal, and eats its own

ordure as soon as it voids it, and of this Dr. Shaw observes,

(see above,) it is remarkably fond! This is a sufficient reason,

were others wanting, why such a fowl should be reputed to be

unclean, and its use as an article of diet prohibited.

The night hawk] tachmas, from chamas, to

force away, act violently and unjustly; supposed by Bochart

and Scheuchzer to signify the male ostrich, from its cruelty

towards its young; (see Job 39:13-18;) but others, with more

reason, suppose it to be the bird described by Hasselquist, which

he calls the strix Orientalis, or Oriental owl. "It is of the

size of the common owl, living in the ruins and old deserted

houses of Egypt and Syria; and sometimes in inhabited houses.

The Arabs in Egypt call it Massasa, the Syrians Bana. It is very

ravenous in Syria, and in the evenings, if the windows be left

open, it flies into the house and kills infants, unless they are

carefully watched; wherefore the women are much afraid of it."-

Travels, p. 196.

If this is the fowl intended, this is a sufficient reason why

it should be considered an abomination.

The cuckoo] shachaph, supposed rather to mean the sea

mew; called shachaph, from shachepheth, a wasting

distemper, or atrophy, (mentioned Le 26:16; De 28:22,)

because its body is the leanest, in proportion to its bones and

feathers, of most other birds, always appearing as if under the

influence of a wasting distemper. A fowl which, from its natural

constitution or manner of life, is incapable of becoming plump or

fleshy, must always be unwholesome; and this is reason sufficient

why such should be prohibited.

And the hawk] nets, from the root natsah, to

shoot forth or spring forward, because of the rapidity and length

of its flight, the hawk being remarkable for both. As this is a

bird of prey, it is forbidden, and all others of its kind.

Verse 17. The little owl] cos, the bittern,

night-raven or night-owl, according to most interpreters. Some

think the onocrotalus or pelican may be intended; for as the word

cos signifies a cup in Hebrew, and the pelican is

remarkable for a pouch or bag under the lower jaw, it might have

had its Hebrew name from this circumstance; but the kaath in the

following verse is rather supposed to mean this fowl, and the cos

some species of the bubo or owl. See Bochart, vol. iii., col.


The cormorant] shalach, from the root which signifies to

cast down; hence the Septuagint καταρρακτης, the cataract, or

bird which falls precipitately down upon its prey. It probably

signifies the plungeon or diver, a sea fowl, which I have seen at

sea dart down as swift as an arrow into the water, and seize the

fish which it had discovered while even flying, or rather

soaring, at a very great height.

The great owl] yanshuph, according to the

Septuagint and the Vulgate, signifies the ibis, a bird well

known and held sacred in Egypt. Some critics, with our translation,

think it means a species of owl or night bird, because the word

may be derived from nesheph, which signifies the twilight,

the time in which owls chiefly fly about. See Bochart, vol.

iii., col. 281.

Verse 18. The swan] tinshemeth. The Septuagint

translate the word by πορφυριωνα, the porphyrion, purple or

scarlet bird. Could we depend on this translation, we might

suppose the flamingo or some such bird to be intended. Some

suppose the goose to be meant, but this is by no means likely, as

it cannot be classed either among ravenous or unclean fowls.

Bochart thinks the owl is meant.

The pelican] kaath. As kaah signifies to

vomit up, the name is supposed to be descriptive of the pelican,

who receives its food into the pouch under its lower jaw, and, by

pressing it on its breast with its bill, throws it up for the

nourishment of its young. Hence the fable which represents the

pelican wounding her breast with her bill, that she might feed

her young with her own blood; a fiction which has no foundation

but in the above circumstance. Bochart thinks the bittern is

meant, vol. iii., col. 292.

The gier eagle] racham. As the root of this word

signifies tenderness and affection, it is supposed to refer to

some bird remarkable for its attachment to its young; hence some

have thought that the pelican is to be understood. Bochart

endeavours to prove that it means the vulture, probably that

species called the golden vulture.-Bochart, vol. iii., col. 303.

Verse 19. The stork] chasidah, from chasad,

which signifies to be abundant in kindness, or exuberant in acts

of beneficence; hence applied to the stork, because of its

affection to its young, and its kindness in tending and feeding

its parents when old; facts attested by the best informed and

most judicious of the Greek and Latin natural historians. See

Bochart, Scheuchzer, and Parkhurst, under the word

chasad. It is remarkable for destroying and eating serpents, and

on this account might be reckoned by Moses among unclean birds.

The heron] anaphah. This word has been variously

understood: some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock,

others the curlew, some the peacock, others the parrot, and

others the crane. The root anaph, signifies to breathe

short through the nostrils, to snuff, as in anger; hence to be

angry: and it is supposed that the word is sufficiently

descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable disposition.

It will attack even a man in defence of its nest; and I have

known a case where a man was in danger of losing his life by the

stroke of a heron's bill, near the eye, who had climbed up into a

high tree to take its nest. Bochart supposes a species of the

eagle to be meant, vol. iii., col. 335.

The lapwing] duchiphath, the upupa, hoopoe, or

hoop, a crested bird, with beautiful plumage, but very unclean.

See Bochart, and Scheuchzer. Concerning the genuine meaning of

the original, there is little agreement among interpreters.

The bat] atalleph, so called, according to

Parkhurst, from at, to fly, and alaph, darkness

or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening,

and in the night: so the Septuagint νυκτερις, from νυξ, the

night; and the Vulgate vespertilio, from vesper, the evening.

This being a sort of monster partaking of the nature of both a

bird and beast, it might well be classed among unclean animals,

or animals the use of which in food should be avoided.

Verse 20. All fowls that creep] Such as the bat, already

mentioned, which has claws attached to its leathern wings, and

which serve in place of feet to crawl by, the feet and legs not

being distinct; but this may also include all the different kinds

of insects, with the exceptions in the following verse.

Going upon all four] May signify no more than walking

regularly or progressively, foot after foot as quadrupeds do; for

it cannot be applied to insects literally, as they have in

general six feet, many of them more, some reputed to have a

hundred, hence called centipedes; and some a thousand, hence

called millipedes; words which often signify no more than that

such insects have a great number of feet.

Verse 21. Which have legs above their feet] This appears to

refer to the different kinds of locusts and grasshoppers, which

have very remarkable hind legs, long, and with high joints,

projecting above their backs, by which they are enabled to spring

up from the ground, and leap high and far.

Verse 22. The locust] arbeh, either from

arab, to lie in wait or in ambush, because often immense flights

of them suddenly alight upon the fields, vineyards, &c., and

destroy all the produce of the earth; or from rabah, he

multiplied, because of their prodigious swarms. See a particular

account of these insects in the notes, See "Ex 10:4".

The bald locust] solam, compounded, says Mr.

Parkhurst, from sala, to cut, break, and am,

contiguity; a kind of locust, probably so called from its rugged,

craggy form. See the first of Scheuchzer's plates, vol. iii.,

p. 100.

The beetle] chargol. "The Hebrew name seems a

derivative from charag, to shake, and regel, the

foot; and so to denote the nimbleness of its motions. Thus in

English we call an animal of the locust kind a grasshopper; the

French name of which is souterelle, from the verb sauter, to

leap"-Parkhurst. This word occurs only in this place. The beetle

never can be intended here, as that insect never was eaten by

man, perhaps, in any country of the universe.

The grasshopper] chagab. Bochart supposes that this

species of locust has its name from the Arabic verb [Arabic]

hajaba to veil; because when they fly, as they often do, in great

swarms, they eclipse even the light of the sun.

See the notes on "Ex 10:4",

and the description of ten kinds of locusts in Bochart, vol.

iii., col. 441. And see the figures in Scheuchzer, in whose

plates 20 different species are represented, vol. iii., p. 100.

And see Dr. Shaw on the animals mentioned in this chapter.

Travels, p. 419, &c., 4to. edition; and when all these are

consulted, the reader will see how little dependence can be

placed on the most learned conjectures relative to these and the

other animals mentioned in Scripture. One thing however is fully

evident, viz., that the locust was eaten, not only in those

ancient times, in the time of John Baptist, Mt 3:4, but also in

the present day. Dr. Shaw ate of them in Barbary "fried and

salted," and tells us that "they tasted very like crayfish."

They have been eaten in Africa, Greece, Syria, Persia, and

throughout Asia; and whole tribes seem to have lived on them, and

were hence called acridophagoi, or locust-eaters by the Greeks.

See Strabo lib. xvi., and Pliny, Hist. Nat., lib. xvii., c. 30.

Verse 27. Whatsoever goeth upon his paws] cappaiv, his

palms or hands, probably referring to those animals whose feet

resemble the hands and feet of the human being, such as apes,

monkeys, and all creatures of that genus; together with bears,

frogs, &c.

Verse 29. The weasel] choled, from chalad, Syr., to

creep in. Bochart conjectures, with great propriety, that the

mole, not the weasel, is intended by the Hebrew word: its

property of digging into the earth, and creeping or burrowing

under the surface, is well known.

The mouse] achbar. Probably the large field rat, or

what is called by the Germans the hamster, though every species

of the mus genus may be here prohibited.

The tortoise] tsab. Most critics allow that the

tortoise is not intended here, but rather the crocodile, the

frog, or the toad. The frog is most probably the animal meant,

and all other creatures of its kind.

Verse 30. The ferret] anakah, from anak, to

groan, to cry out: a species of lizard, which derives its name

from its piercing, doleful cry. See Bochart, vol. ii., col.


The chameleon] coach. Bochart contends that this is the

[Arabic] waril or guaril, another species of lizard, which

derives its name from its remarkable strength and vigour in

destroying serpents, the Hebrew cach signifying to be strong,

firm, vigorous: it is probably the same with the mongoose, a

creature still well known in India, where it is often

domesticated in order to keep the houses free from snakes, rats,

mice, &c.

The lizard] letaah. Bochart contends that this also is

a species of lizard, called by the Arabs [Arabic] wahara, which

creeps close to the ground, and is poisonous.

The snail] chomet, another species of lizard,

according to Bochart, called [Arabic] huluka by the Arabians,

which lives chiefly in the sand.-Vol. ii., col. 1075.

The mole.] tinshameth, from nasham, to

breathe. Bochart seems to have proved that this is the chameleon,

which has its Hebrew name from its wide gaping mouth, very large

lungs, and its deriving its nourishment from small animals which

float in the air, so that it has been conjectured by some to feed

on the air itself.-Vol. iii., col. 1073. A bird of the same name

is mentioned Le 11:13, which Bochart supposes to be the

night-owl.-Vol. iii., col. 286.

Verse 32. Any vessel of wood] Such as the wooden bowls still

in use among the Arabs. Or raiment, or skin-any trunks or

baskets covered with skins, another part of the furniture of an

Arab tent; the goat-skins, in which they churn their milk, may be

also intended. Or sack-any hair-cloth used for the purpose of

transporting goods from place to place.

Verse 33. And every earthen vessel] Such pitchers as are

commonly used for drinking out of, and for holding liquids. M.

De la Roque observes that hair-sacks, trunks, and baskets,

covered with skin, are used among the travelling Arabs to carry

their household utensils in, which are kettles or pots, great

wooden bowls, hand-mills, and pitchers. It is very likely that

these are nearly the same with those used by the Israelites in

their journeyings in the wilderness, for the customs of these

people do not change.

Verse 35. Ranges for pots] To understand this, we must

observe that the Arabs dig a hole in their tent, about a foot and

a half deep; three-fourths of this, says Rauwolff, they lay about

with stones, and the fourth part is left open for the purpose of

throwing in their fuel. This little temporary building is

probably what is here designed by ranges for pots; and this was

to be broken down when any unclean thing had fallen upon it. See

Harmer, vol. 1., p. 464.

Verse 36. A fountain or pit, &c.] This must either refer to

running water, the stream of which soon carries off all

impurities, or to large reservoirs where the water soon purifies

itself; the water in either which touched the unclean thing,

being considered as impure, the rest of the water being clean.

Verse 37. Any sowing seed] If any part of an impure carcass

fall accidentally on seed about to be sown, it shall not on that

account be deemed unclean; but if the water put to the seed to

prepare it for being sown, shall be touched by such impure

carcass, the seed shall be considered as unclean, Le 11:38.

Probably this may be the meaning of these passages.

Verse 42. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly] In the word

gahOn, the vau holem, in most Hebrew Bibles, is much larger than

the other letters; and a Masoretic note is added in the margin,

which states that this is the middle letter of the law; and

consequently this verse is the middle verse of the Pentateuch.

Whatsoever hath more feet] Than four; that is, all

many-footed reptiles, as well as those which go upon the belly

having no feet, such as serpents; besides the four-footed smaller

animals mentioned above.

Verse 44. Ye shall-sanctify yourselves] Ye shall keep

yourselves separate from all the people of the earth, that ye may

be holy; for I am holy. And this was the grand design of God in

all these prohibitions and commands; for these external

sanctifications were only the emblems of the internal purity

which the holiness of God requires here, and without which none

can dwell with him in glory hereafter. See at the conclusion of

this chapter.

THE contents of this chapter must furnish many profitable

reflections to a pious mind.

1. From the great difficulty of ascertaining what animals are

meant in this part of the law, we may at once see that the law

itself must be considered as abrogated; for there is not a Jew in

the universe who knows what the animals are, a very few excepted,

which are intended by these Hebrew words; and therefore he may be

repeatedly breaking this law by touching and being touched either

by the animals themselves or their produce, such as hair, wool,

fur, skin, intestines, differently manufactured, &c., &c. It

therefore appears that this people have as little law as they

have gospel.

2. While God keeps the eternal interests of man steadily in

view, he does not forget his earthly comfort; he is at once

solicitous both for the health of his body and his soul. He has

not forbidden certain aliments because he is a Sovereign, but

because he knew they would be injurious to the health and morals

of his people. The close connection that subsists between the

body and the soul we cannot fully comprehend; and as little can

we comprehend the influence they have on each other. Many moral

alterations take place in the mind in consequence of the

influence of the bodily organs; and these latter are greatly

influenced by the kind of ailment which the body receives. God

knows what is in man, and he knows what is in all creatures; he

has therefore graciously forbidden what would injure both body

and mind, and commanded what is best calculated to be useful to

both. Solid-footed animals, such as the horse, and many-toed

animals, such as the cat, &c., are here prohibited. Beasts which

have bifid or cloven hoofs, such as the ox and sheep, are

considered as proper for food, and therefore commanded. The

former are unclean, i. e., unwholesome, affording a gross

nutriment, often the parent of scorbutic and scrofulous

disorders; the latter clean, i. e., affording a copious and

wholesome nutriment, and not laying the foundation of any

disease. Ruminating animals, i. e., those which chew the cud,

concoct their food better than the others which swallow it with

little mastication, and therefore their flesh contains more of

the nutritious juices, and is more easy of digestion, and

consequently of assimilation to the solids and fluids of the

human body; on this account they are termed clean, i. e.,

peculiarly wholesome, and fit for food. The animals which do not

ruminate do not concoct their food so well, and hence they abound

with gross animal juices, which yield a comparatively unwholesome

nutriment to the human system. Even the animals which have bifid

hoofs but do not chew the cud, such as the swine, and those which

chew the cud but are not bifid, such as the hare and rabbit, are

by Him who knows all things forbidden, because he knew them to be

comparatively innutritive. In all this God shows himself as the

tender Father of a numerous family, pointing out to his

inexperienced, froward, and ignorant children, those kinds of

aliments which he knows will be injurious to their health and

domestic happiness, and prohibiting them on pain of his highest

displeasure. On the same ground he forbade all fish that have

not both fins and scales, such as the conger, eel, &c., which

abound in gross juices and fat which very few stomachs are able

to digest. Who, for instance, that lives solely on swine's

flesh, has pure blood and healthy juices? And is it not evident,

in many cases, that the man partakes considerably of the nature

of the brute on which he exclusively feeds? I could pursue this

inquiry much farther, and bring many proofs founded on

indisputable facts, but I forbear; for he who might stand most in

need of caution, would be the first to take offence.

3. As the body exists only for the sake of the soul, and God

feeds and nourishes it through the day of probation, that the

soul may here be prepared for the kingdom of heaven; therefore he

shows in the conclusion of these ordinances, that the grand scope

and design of all was that they might be a holy people, and that

they might resemble him who is a holy God.-GOD IS HOLY; and this

is the eternal reason why all his people should be holy-should be

purified from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting

holiness in the fear of God. No faith in any particular creed,

no religious observance, no acts of benevolence and charity, no

mortification, attrition, or contrition, can be a substitute for

this. We must be made partakers of the Divine nature. We must

be saved from our sins-from the corruption that is in the world,

and be made holy within and righteous without, or never see God.

For this very purpose Jesus Christ lived, died, and revived, that

he might purify us unto himself; that through faith in his blood

our sins might be blotted out, and our souls restored to the

image of God.-Reader, art thou hungering and thirsting after

righteousness? Then blessed art thou, for thou shalt be filled.

Copyright information for Clarke