MILITZ
257
MILK
ders professed to unite religious vows with the duties and discipline of a warrior. The chief objects they claiined to have in view were to defend and support Christianity, by force of arms, against the Mohamme- dans ; to keep the public roads of Palestine from being infested with robbers ; and to assist the poor, and minis- ter to the sick, among those who were prompted by the spirit of the times to visit, as pilgrims, the various places reputed to be scenes of our Lord's earthly career.
The inferior orders of Alcantara and Calatrava, in Spain, having for their immediate object the defence of their country against the Moors, as well as those of Avis, in Portugal, claimed to have been instituted for like reasons as those above mentioned. They followed the Cistercian ride, and all three differed from the Templars and the Knights of St. John in being permitted by their institute to marry once. The. same privilege was en- joyed in the Savoyard order of Knights of St. Maurice and the Flemish order of St. Hubert. On the contrary, the Teutonic Knights, who had their origin in the Cru- sades [see Teutonic Knights], were bound by an ab- solute vow of chastit3\
With the varying conditions of society, these relig- ious associations have at various times been abolished or fiillen into disuse ; but most of them still subsist in the form of orders of knighthood, and, in some of them, attempts have recently been made to revive, with certain modifications, the monastic character which they originally possessed. See Lea, Hist, of Sacerdotal Celibacy, ch. xxii; Giustiuani, Ordini Mili- tari, s. v.
Militz. See Milicz.
Milk is designated by two Hebrew words of distinct signification.
1. Sbn (chalah', fat, i. e. rich ; Gr. yaXa) denotes new or sweet milk. This, in its. fresh state, appears to have been used very largely among the Hebrews, as is customary among people who have many cattle, and yet make but sparing use of their flesh for food (see Job xxi, 24; Judg. iv, 19). It is not a mere adjunct in cookery, or restricted to the use of the young, although it is naturally the characteristic food of childhood, both from its simple and nutritive qualities (1 Pet. ii, 2), and particularly as contrasted with meat (1 Cor. iii, 2 ; Heb. V, 12); but beyond this it is regarded as substantial food adapted alike to all ages and classes. Hence it is enumerated among " the principal things for the whole use of a man's life" (Ecclus. xxxix, 2G). It frequently occurs in connection with honey, as a delicacj' (Exod. iii, 8; xiii, 5; Josh, v, 6; Jer. xi, 5; comp. Dio Chrys. XXXV, p. 434; Strabo, xv, p. 715). In reading of milk in Scripture, the milk of cows naturally presents itself to the mind of the European reader ; but in Western Asia, and especially among the pastoral and semi-pastoral people, not only cows, but goats, sheep, and camels are made to give their milk for the sustenance of man. That this was also the case among the Hebrews may be clearly inferred even from the slight intimations which the Scriptures afford. Thus we read of "butter of kine, and milk of sheep" (Deut. xxxii, 14); and in Prov. xxvii, 27, the emphatic intimation, '• Thou shalt have goats' milk for food," seems to implj' that this was con- sidered the best for use in the simple state (comp. Pliny, xxviii, 33 ; see Russell's .4 leppo, ii, 12 ; Sonnini, Trav. i, 329 sq. ; Bochart, //if?-oz. i, 717 sq.). "Thirty milch camels" were among the cattle which Jacob presented to his brother Esau (Gen. xxxii, 15), implying the use of camels' milk.
The most striking scriptiu-al allusion to milk is that which forbids a kid to be seethed in its mother's milk, and its importance is attested by its being thrice re- peated (Exod. xxiii, 19; xxxiv, 26; Deut. xiv, 21). The following are the most remarkable views respecting it : (1.) That it prohibits the eating of the fostus of the goat as a delicacy : but there is not the least evidence that the Jews were ever attached to this disgusting VL— R
luxury. (2.) That it prevents the kid being killed till it is eight davs old, when, it is said, it might subsist without the iiiilk of its mother. (3.) This ground is admitted by those who deduce a further reason from the fact that a kid was not, until the eighth day, fit for sacrifice. But there appears no good reason why a kid shoidd be described as " m its mother's milk," in those days, more than in any other days of the period during which it is suckled. (4.) Others, therefore, maintain that the eating of a sucking kid is altogether and abso- lutely prohibited. But a goat suckles its kid for three months, and it is not likely that the Jews were so long forbidden the use of it for food. No food is forbidden but as unclean, and a kid ceased to be unclean on the eighth day, when it was fit for sacrifice ; and what was fit for sacrifice could not be unfit for food. (5.) That the prohibition was meant to prevent the dam and kid from being slain at the same time. But this is forbidden with reference to the goat and other animals in express terms, and there seems to be no reason why it should be repeated in this remarkable form with reference to the goat only. (G.) Others understand it literally, as a pre- cept designed to encourage humane feelings. But, as Michaelis asks, how came the Israelites to hit upon the strange whim of boiling a kid in milk, and just in the milk of its own mother ? (7.) Still, understanding the text literally, it is possible that this was not a common act of cookery, but an idolatrous or magical rite. Blai- monides, in liis 3fore Nelochim, urges this opinion, and adduces the fact that in two of the above passages the practice is spoken of in immediate connection with the three great annual feasts (Exod. xxiii, 17, 19 ; xxxiv, 23, 26), although he admits that he "had not yet been able to find it in the Zabian books." This opinion is confirmed by an extract which Cudworth (^Discourses concerning the True Notion of the Lord's Supper, p. 30) gives from an ancient Karaite commentary on the Pen- tateuch ; it has been supported by Spencer (Z>e Legibus Hebr. ii, 9, § 2), and has been advocated by Le Clerc, Dathe, and other able writers ; it is also corroborated by the addition in the Samaritan copy, and in some degree by the Targum. (8.) Michaelis, however, advances a quite new opinion of his own. He takes it for granted that bda, rendered " seethe," may signify to roast as weU as to boil, which is hardly disputable ; that the kid's mother is not here limited to the real mother, but applies to any goat that has kidded; that 23n here de- notes not milk, but buittr ; and that the precept is not restricted to kids, but extends not only to lambs (which is generally granted), but to all other not forbidden ani- mals. Having erected these props, IMichaelis builds upon them the conjecture that the motive of the pre- cept was to endear to the Israelites the land of Canaan, which abounded in oil, and to make them forget their Egyptian butter. Closes, therefore, to prevent their having any longing desire to return to that country', enjoins them to use oil in cooking their victuals, as well as in seasoning their sacrifices (Mosaisches Recht, pt. iv, p. 210). This is ingenious, but it is open to objection. The postulates cannot readily be granted, and, if grant- ed, the conclusion deduced from them is scarcely just, seeing that, as Geddes remarks, " there was no need nor temptation for the Israelites to return to Egypt on ac- count of its butter, when they possessed a country that flowed with milk and honey" {Critical Remarks, p. 257). See Kid.