Such are the cases of ceremonial uncleanness, as grouped in the threefold classification of the law itself. As, however, a few stray instances remain of a peculiar kind, we will proceed to class them in a supplementary chapter. We have then under this head, first, the cases of what may be called az,Vcia/ uncleanness. (a.) The priest who superin tended the holocaust of the red heifer was rendered unclean until evening by the part he took in the sacred rite ; from this defilement he purified him self by the washing of his clothes and the ablution of his person (Nuin. xix. 7). This uncleanness was the more remarkable, from the precautionary character of the law, which in other cases seemed so strongly to aim at preserving the priests, as far as might Lie, from the incidence of ceremonial pollution (see Lev. xxi. 1-4). (b.) The man that burnt the heifer was involved in the same defile ment as the priest, from which he was also extri cated by a similar purification (Num. xix. 8). So again (c.), the man who gathered the ashes of the consumed heifer was unclean until evening ; but from tbis disability he was released by the lesser ceremony of simply washing his clothes (ver. to). Similar instances of uncleanness, arising out of official routine, occur in the ordinances of the Day of Atonement. (ci .) The man who dismissed the scape-goat was to wash his clothes and bathe him self before returning to the camp (Lev. xvi. 26) ; and (e.), a like purification was required of him wbo burnt the bullock and the goat of the sin-offering (ver. 28). Under this head of qfficial uncleanness, we may perhaps place the abnormal case of the Israelite soldiers who slew the Midianites at the command of Moses (Num. xxxi. 17). They were to remain outside the camp seven days ; purify themselves on the third and on the seventh day ; cleanse their raiment, etc., with either fire or the water of separation, as the case might require, and on the last day wash their clothes (vers. 19, 20, 23, 24). Besides these cases of offcial uncleanness, we find one instance sui generis occurring in Deut. xxiii. io, 11, which, with its purification, is thus de scribed If there be among you any man that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanced] him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp . . . but when evening cometh he shall wash himself with water, and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.' [It may be observed, that this case is not designated by the usual term rmtnn ; the phrase merely de notes its accidental character,-n-pn nirin-t6].
••: ' T Our enumeration, to be complete, should include the aggregate uncleanness of the priest and his household, and the nation (Lev. xvi.) ; this was expiated by the grand ritual of the GREAT DAY OF ATONEMENT, for the imposing details of which ceremony we must refer the reader to our article on that subject.
Some few historical instances of uncleanness, and more of purification, are mentioned both in the O. T. and the N. T. As being, however, appli cations only of some of the statutes which we have given above, we shall refrain from adducing them here, except one case, which is important because it led to the enactment of a proviso in the law. There \vere certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day.' They stated their difficulty to Moses and Aaron, the former of whom referred It to the Lord, and obtained from him a statute allowing a supplemental celebration of the passover for such as were incapacitated in the manner in question or on a distant journey (see PASSOVER and Num. ix. 6-12). In contrast with this relief was the inflexible penalty threatened against all wilful neglect of the various rites of purification prescribed in the law. The fullest formula of this penalty occurs in Num. xix. 20 : The man that shall be unclean and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut of from among the congregation [or, as it runs in ver. 13, from Israel'], because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord.' That this ex
cision meant death is evident from Lev. xv. 31 and xx. 9 (See Michaelis, Laws of Moses [Smith], iv. 43, and Keil 011 Gen. xvii. 14). Jehovah, the tbeocratic king and holy God, who had his own ways of cutting off' the disobedient, is pleased to include in his sentence of excision the reason for its infliction ; because he hath defiled the sanc tuary of the Lord.' This is in direct accordance with the principle by which the divine legislator repeatedly sanctions his laws: Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy' (Lev. xix. 2 and frequently elsewhere) ; and it was the recognition of these saintly duties which always characterised the pious Israelite. God' (says .the Psalmist, Ps. lxxxix. 7) is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints [Velp, which is likewise the word used in the formula of Leviticus—the phrase i'lr)2 rrj-ip also, which occurs in the 5th ver. of this Psalm, • : is the frequent designation of the political organisa tion of the Israelites], and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.' The Mosaic ritual on uncleanness illustrates much of the phraseology of the Psalms and the Prophets, and (what is more) many statements in the N. T. ; not only in obvious comparisons, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but in oblique phrases, such as in Eph. v. 26, 27 ; where the apDstle, 'speaking of Chrises washing the church, that he might present it to himself without spot or wrinkle,' etc., seetneth to allude to the Jews' exceeding great curiousness in their washings for purification' (Lightfoot, who quotes Maimonides in Mikvaoth, cap. t, vol. iii. p. 297). In conclusion, we must refer to the notices of puri fication which occur in the N. T. These are of three kinds — 1st, The legitimate instances, such as that of the Virgin Mary (Luke ii. 22) ; the leper (Mark 44) ; the Nazarite (Acts xxi. 23, 24) ; all of which make express reference to the law. 2d/y, The unauthorised cases, such as the tradi tional and Pharisaical washings of the hands (Matt. XV. 2), and of tables, cups, and platters (Mark vii. 4). All these the Lord condemned in strong terms as superstitious encroachments on the divine law. 34, The doubtful cases, such as the case of those who came to Jerusalem to purify themselves before the Passover ( John xi. 55), and the discussion mentioned in John 25. Their controversy,' says Lightfoot, • was partly about the pre-eminence of the Judaical washings and the evangelical bap tism—and here the Jews and John's disciples were at opposition ; and partly about the pre-eminence of John's baptism and Christ's—and here the Jews would hiss them on in the contestation' (Works [Pitman], v. 67). Our object in this article has been to collect the scriptural laws on uncleanness and purification ; we have avoided the Jewish tra ditionat doctrines. These may be discovered by the curious on such subjects by a careful use of the indexes to the works of Lightfoot ; Schoettgenii Hora Hebr. et Talmud ; and Surenhusii Mishna. Dr. Wotton, in his work on the Mishna (voL L 16o-170), has analysed the Sea'er Tahoroth or Order of Purifications, which contains the authorised tra dition on the subject of our article. In this order,' says Wotton, more than ilz any of the rest, the true Pharisaical spirit which our blessed Lord so severely reprehends in Matt. xv. and Mark vii. is plainly and fully seen.' We subjoin the names of the chief titles' or sections of this order Celinz, vessels ; 2. Oholoth, tents—treating of pol lutions from the dead ; 3. Negaim, plagues—of leprosy ; 4. Para, the red heifer ; 5. Tzhoroth, purifications—relating to lesser uncleannesses which last but a day ; 6. lllikvaoth, collections of water for the cleansing baths, etc. ; 7. Nidda, menstrual pollutions ; 9. Zahint, men that have seminal un cicannesses ; to. Tebul Yam, washed by day [see above] ; and t. Yadainz, hands—the constitutions in which title have no foundation in the written law.—P. H.