2. There is a typical and ceremonial uncleanness, such as was appointed in the Law, of which there were two sorts, one more heinous, and so did cast a greater and longer separation from the company of men, and the public worship of God: The other less, and so more easily purified, and that in a shorter space; and the former kind of uncleannesses, We read Levit. 12. That a woman upon her bringing forth a child was guilty of: Insomuch that in the legal dispensation, every woman that brought forth a child was to be separated so many days, as unclean to be kept from the public worship of God, and at last to bring an offering for to cleanse her. Now it's disputed, why God appointed such a law about a woman's uncleanness, and purification in bringing forth children. Although some, as Bonfretius and Grotius make it to no more signification, than of other impurities that were legal, yet Austin of old, and Calvin are very positive, that this was to inform them of the cursed and sinful estate, that the child was brought into the world with. The father and mother (saith Calvin) by this ceremony were taught with what humiliation and sorrow they ought to look upon that natural pollution, the infant was born in, and in his comment on the place, he insinuateth two Answers to those two Objections, that are made against the typifying of original sin thereby, as that this uncleanness and so purification, did belong to the child as well as the mother. For the Objectors say, It could not denote original sin, because it related to the mother only, and not to the child; but Calvin saith, it belongeth to both, and that by Luk. 2. 22. it may be proved. And Grotius preferreth those Copies which have the plural number, [Greek or Hebrew], their purification, relating to the child, as well as the mother: But Junius doth more probably think, it belonged only to the mother. Another Objection is, That the mother was longer unclean by a female, than a male, which if it were for original sin, would argue the female had more of it, than the male. To this, Calvin giveth this conjecture, That therefore there might be so much spiritual ⟨p. 51⟩signification to the female, that so the defect in circumcision, the females not being to be circumcised, might be made up this way. But the difference of time is commonly attributed to a physical consideration;
2. There is a typical and ceremonial uncleanness, such as was appointed in the Law, of which there were two sorts, one more hainous, and so did cast a greater and longer separation from the company of men, and the publique worship of God: The other less, and so more easily purified, and that in a shorter space; and the former kind of uncleannesses, We read Levit. 12. That a woman upon her bringing forth a child was guilty of: Insomuch that in the legal dispensation, every woman that brought forth a child was to be separated so many dayes, as unclean to be kept from the publick worship of God, and at last to bring an offering for to cleanse her. Now it's disputed, why God appointed such a law about a womans uncleanness, and purification in bringing forth children. Although some, as Bonfretius and Grotius make it to no more signification, than of other impurities that were legall, yet Austin of old, and Calvin are very positive, that this was to informe them of the cursed and sinnefull estate, that the child was brought into the world with. The father and mother (saith Calvin) by this ceremony were taught with what humiliation and sorrow they ought to look upon that natural pollution, the infant was born in, and in his comment on the place, he insinuateth two Answers to those two Objections, that are made against the typifying of original sinne thereby, as that this uncleanness and so purification, did belong to the child as well as the mother. For the Objectors say, It could not denote original sin, because it related to the mother only, and not to the child; but Calvin saith, it belongeth to both, and that by Luk. 2. 22. it may be proved. And Grotius preferreth those Copies which have the plural number, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, their purification, relating to the child, as well as the mother: But Junius doth more probably think, it belonged only to the mother. Another Objection is, That the mother was longer unclean by a female, than a male, which if it were for original sinne, would argue the female had more of it, than the male. To this, Calvin giveth this conjecture, That therefore there might be so much spiritual ⟨p. 51⟩signification to the female, that so the defect in circumcision, the females not being to be circumcised, might be made up this way. But the difference of time is commonly attributed to a physical consideration;
