It is, however, to be noticed, as a remarkable fact regarding the regulations laid down here for the food of Israel, that all the clean animals are wholesome for food and the fish that have fins and scales-viz., the cleanare not only safe, but nutritious. Still, this is only a secondary consideration, taken into account, no doubt, by God, while he, in wisdom and love, appointed this arrangement for higher ends. It is also worthy of notice, that the wisdom which selected the clean and the unclean as early as the days of Noah, foresaw what animals would be worshipped and used by idolaters. Hence we find them answering that use also, while still something far higher is the main thing in view.

To imbue the mind of Israel with moral distinctions was the grand and primary use of this arrangement. It was so in Noah's days, and probably in Adam's; but now the development of that system takes place more fully; just as in the case of the various sorts of offerings.

In proof that to teach Israel to put a difference between the clean and unclean in things moral was the end of these typical distinctions, we might refer to verses 44, 45. And also we might refer to Peter's vision, in Acts x. 12, 14, where he is shown that the idolatrous Gentiles, so long unclean, are now to be admitted into fellowship with Israel. There we are clearly taught that there was a typical reference to sin in these ordinances.

We should join the last clause with ver. 3, and read thus-"These are the living creatures () which ye may eat. Of all large beasts (2) that are on the earth, whatsoever parteth the hoof," &c.

Vers. 3, 4. "Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless

these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof, as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

We have another table of the clean and unclean in Deuteronomy, chap. xiv., and some apparent differences occur. But the reconciliation is easy. It is this. In Leviticus, the principles of the distinction are laid down, and illustrated by only a few instances, either in regard to beast or fowl. In Deuteronomy, specific cases are given; and though, at ver. 6, the rule is noticed, yet the object of the writer there is to set down special instances of the clean and unclean, rather than to state the rule.

The grand rules as to quadrupeds are, 1. The clean are those that have their feet completely cloven (above and below); and, 2. They must also chew the cud. The complete dividing of the hoof is very fully expressed in the Hebrew; it is, q. d., "Whatever not only divideth the hoof, but cleaveth a cleft in the hoof." This part of the rule was sufficient to exclude all such animals as the lion and the dog, whose foot has a membrane below that unites the claws together, and so interferes with the complete cleft; or such as the horse, that has no cleft at all. And when the next part of the rule demanded that the animal should be one that chews the cud, this secured that it should never be a carnivorous animal; for all that chew the cud live on vegetable food. No carnivorous animal was clean; they had qualities that made them unfit to be acknowledged as proper for God's people to touch. But some of those not carnivorous were also unfit to be taken as food, possessing some peculiarity that fitted them to be types of things which the holy should avoid.

In ver. 4, "nevertheless," is, equivalent to "for

example." There was a difficulty in determining the case of the camel, whether or not it really divides the hoof wholly, and the case of the hare, whether it really chews the cud; therefore these cases are decided by authority. And along with each of these a sample is given where no ambiguity existed, viz., the coney and the swine.

In doubtful cases, we should decide on the side of abstaining from the thing. See 1 Thess. v. 22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

Vers. 5, 6, 7, 8. "And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the hare,* because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted; yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch: they are unclean to you."

The coney (in Hebrew, the Shaphan) is an animal called the daman, resembling the hare in size, and living in holes of the rock. The swine, in the East, if eaten, produce a tendency to itchy diseases, to leprosy, and, in short, to cutaneous diseases of all kinds.

We see here how the Lord multiplied in Israel the memorials of sin. In Noah's day, the distinction between clean and unclean was known; but only in its rudiments. That general rule is now branched out into particulars.

* Hebrew, . It is stated by a Jewish writer, that the Seventy interpreters were much puzzled by this word. They hesitated to render it by "Maywos," or "Xayws," because Ptolemy, whose father and uncle were of the family of the "Mayo," might take offence at finding his name registered among the unclean animals. But neither could they retain the Hebrew term," Arnebeth," because Ptolemy's queen was named " Arnebet;" and she might think herself insulted. They therefore resorted to the expedient of rendering the word by the descriptive term, “ Aaourous,” q. d., "rough-foot."

By this new constitution, sin was much oftener brought before the eyes and into the thoughts of the godly men of Israel. For, suppose an Israelite of "quick discernment in the fear of the Lord" going forth to his labor. As he goes forth, he meets one leading a camel along. The sight of this animal, marked as unclean in the law, stirs up his soul to reflect upon God's having his eye on his people to see if they avoid sin and remember his revealed will; and just because this animal was one of those that it would have been difficult to determine whether it belonged to the clean or unclean, had not express authority decided, he is reminded that it will be safe for himself to know the Lord's positive decision in things that have a doubtful aspect. He walks onward. As he crosses the field, a hare starts from its form, and speeds past him. Here he is reminded that there are things which God has expressly forbidden, and which he must avoid with as much fear as this timid hare hastens its escape from him. As he passes near some rocky part of his farm, the coney, or daman, attracts his eye, and deepens the remembrance that God has made a difference between good and evil; and teaches him to hide from the approach of the least appearance of evil, even as that coney, at the sight of a foe, betakes itself to its rocks. In the more woody and wild scenes, he sees the swine and the wild boar enjoying their retreats in savage filthiness. There he again is reminded of the law of his God; and there he reads, at the same time, the filth of iniquity— its impure, loathsome aspect-the swine wallowing in the mire, and the wild boar stretching his carcass at ease, or sharpening his tusks for some effort of destruction.*

*The peculiar abhorrence entertained of swine, has been supposed to have arisen in part from the fact, that the Heathen used them in their

We have, in Deuteronomy, chap. xiv., an enumeration of the principal clean animals. These would, in like manner, remind the Israelites of what was holy. One went forth to his flocks, and there the sheep, feeding in their pastures, spoke to him of the clean and holy ones whom the Lord watches over as their Shepherd. Another, who beheld the wild goat, amid solitary rocks where scarcely any foot ever trod, feels himself taught that the Lord has kept up the difference between holy and unholy even in the deepest solitude; while, at the same time, he reads the doctrine of a sustaining providence in the safety of the wild goat on its precipices. The hart, leaping in its joy, or hastening to quench its thirst in water-brooks, leads his thoughts to holiness. It is a clean animal; it may guide his thoughts; it may remind him of the saint's panting after God. Again, the roe-buck, or gazelle, amid the fragrant shrubs, spoke of holy distinctions, and might lead up his soul to the beauty of holiness amid the enchanting beauty of earth's rich scenery. It may have been thus that it was first seen by Solomon, in the hills of Bethlehem; and often, in after days, it would tell an Israelite of Him who was to come as a 66 roe on the mountains of spices." They could not gaze on the beautiful antlers of the fallow-deer, nor on the pygarg (or lidmee), with its double-sized horns and double strength, on the buffalo's wild might, or the chamois, sent out by God to people the very cliffs of the rock— they could never gaze on these merely with the feelings of one admiring a creating God; they were led to think of them as connecting them with a holy God, who dis

feasts and sacrifices. But this is not satisfactory; for the Egyptians held them unclean. It has been from the peculiar style of the animal; just what gave occasion to the proverb, 2 Peter ii. 22.