cubit and an hand breadth which was foure fingers or three thumbs more than the ordinary But seeing this great cubit was used among the Persians called regius cubitus Persarum the Kings cubit or Persian cubit which was not in use among the Hebrewes before the captivity it is not like that this measure was followed in the making of the Tabernacle 4. Wherefore I thinke rather that the usuall and ordinary cubit is here to be taken which contained two hands breadth of the greater fift and six of the lesse the great or large hand breadth called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contained twelve fingers the space betweene the thumbe and the little finger stretched out the lesse called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contained but foure fingers So then whereas Iusephus saith that the Arke was five palmeâ— or hand breadths long and there broad he meaneth the large and great palme or hand breadth called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so they make two cubits and halfe in length and a cubit and halfe in breadth Beda followeth this account of Iosephus saying Nec putuâ—dum hominum Iudaum in scripturis divinis secularibus doctissimum hoc petuisse latere c. It is not like that a Jew being learned in divine and secular writings could be ignorant herein And in this sense doe Bâ—rrhaius and Ribera take the cubit here QUEST XX. Whether the rings and barres were in the length or breadth of the Arke Vers. 12. TWo rings shall be on the one side c. 1. Tostacus therein following the opinion of R. Sâ—lamo thinketh that these rings thorow the which the barres were put to carry the Arke were not in the length but the breadth of the Arke for if the barres had beene put long wayes then there had beene but a cubit and halfe the breadth of the Arke betweene barre and barre which space had beene too narrow for two to carry behinde and two before one should have hindred another But this is a slender conjecture for they which carried the Arke may be supposed to have borne it upon their neere shoulders and so they might have roome enough without hindring one another Cajetane is of the same opinion that the Arke was carried secundum latitudinem at the breadth not long wayes and his reason is for more dignity sake that it should not be carried as a thing of burthen long wayes But there is no more grace or dignity in carrying one way than another it seemeth they rather respected in the carriage easinesse and comelinesse which was performed in carrying it in length more than in breadth 2. Therefore Iosephus opinion is more probable that annuli inerant exâ—troque longiore latere the rings were set on each of the long sides So also Montanus And this is more agreeable to the text that saith the rings were in the sides of the Arke which were in the length the other were the ends not the sides Lyranus QUEST XXI Whether anything were in the Arke beside the tables of stone Vers. 16. THou shalt put in the Arke the Testimonie which I shall give thee 1. Rupertus here by this Testimony understandeth not only the Tables of stone but the pot of Manna also and Aarons Rod. But that cannot be as Tostatus reasoneth because this Testimony here spoken of was given by God himselfe so were neither of the other And although the other were in some sense testimonies also unto Israel as the pot of Manna testified unto them how God miraculously fed them in the wildernesse and Aarons Rod testified that the tribe of Levi usurped not that calling but were therein appointed of God yet the Tables of the Law were specially so called quia testes erant c. because they were witnesses betweene God and his people that they had received these precepts of God and promised obedience Lyran. 2. But though Tostatus herein dissent from Rupertus in the exposition of these words yet he thinketh that all these three were in the Arke quaest 11. and that the booke of Deuteronomie which Moses writ was there also which Moses commanded the Levites to put in the side of the Arke Deut. 31. And this they thinke to be confirmed by the Apostles testimonie Hebr. 9.3 After the second vaile was the Tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all which had the golden censer and the Arke of the Testament overlaid with gold in the which the golden pâ—t which had Manna was and Aarons rod that had budded and the tables of the Testament But in this place as Iunius Ribera Pelargus have well observed the relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in qua in the which is not referred to the Testament but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Tabernacle before spoken of for it is not unusuall for the relative to be referred to the former antecedent as may be observed in divers places 3. Therefore the truth is that there was nothing in the Arke beside the tables of the Law as is evidently testified 2 King 8.9 and 2 Chron. 5.10 Some doe answer that in Moses time all these were in the Arke but not in Salomons so Catharinus and some conjecture that the enemies might have taken away the other when the Arke was in their custody sic Genevens But Iosephus evidently witnesseth that there was never any thing put within the Arke saving the tables of stone Thomas Aquinas thinketh that the tables of stone are said to be there because although the rest were there also the Arke was made specially to keepe those tables of stone But the text is plaine that there was nothing there beside Anselmus saith that they are said to be in the Arke because they were neere to the Arke But it is evident that the tables of stone were not only neere the Arke but in the Arke it selfe therefore in the same sense they are not all said to be in the Arke Lyranus in 2 King 8. Abulens qu. 6. and Cajetane affirme that the tables of the Law were only in the Arke and the other two were in a little cheâ—t or coffer in the side of the Arke But this Ribera saith is comâ—â—entitium imagined for we reade not of any such thing made without the Arke Therefore the best resolution is this that the tables of the Law were only in the Arke the other two Aarons Rod and the pot of Manna were only placed before the Arke As Exod. 16.34 the pot of Manna is said to be laid up before the Testimony to be kept So Num. 17.10 the Lord said to Moses Bring 〈◊〉 Rod before the Testimonie to be kept but we reade not that it is any where said of the two tableâ— that they were laid up before the Lord. And concerning the booke of Deuteronomie which Moses did write it was not put into the Arke but without neere unto the Arke in the Tabernacle because it was found afterward in Iosias time in the place where the treasure was 2 Chron. 34.14 Ribera
And therefore it was the old use in the consecration of Bishops to aske of him that was consecrated vtrum velit Episcopatum whether he would have a Bishoprike who was twice to say nay but if any such desired a Bishopricke induceret illum ad mentiendum he that asked such question should enduce him to lie Thus farre Tostatus proceedeth well 2. But whereas that place of the Apostle will be objected If any man desireth the office of a Bishop he desireth a good worke 1 Tim. 3.1 he answereth he desireth indeed bonum opus a good worke but not bene he desireth it not well whereas the Apostle in these words as Hierom expoundeth them Ad operis desiderium non ad honoris ambitum provocat doth rather provoke and stir up unto the desire of the work not ambitiously to seek the honour c. The Apostle then in these words reprehendeth not but alloweth their desire which affect the callings of the Church rather prodesse quam praesse to profit others than to rule as Augustine saith 3. Wherefore this further may be added that in seeking or desiring the places and offices of the Church there are two extremes to be shunned the one was the fault of former times when they which otherwise were well qualified and enabled for Ecclesiasticall functions did altogether decline them and utterly refused to take that calling upon them as one Ammonius when he should have been ordained a Presbyter cut off one of his eares and threatned if they would not let him alone to cut out his tongue to make himselfe altogether unfit for that calling The other fault is incident to this age ambitiously to sue and seeke for the preferments of the Church such an one was Diatrephes who loved to have preeminence Wherefore that a meane may bee kept in desiring the places in the Church three things must bee considered 1. Hee that hath any mind to an Ecclesiasticall calling must first examine himselfe whether hee bee fitted and enabled with gifts and that in an humble opinion not in a blind selfe-love but such an one as is not furnished with gifts sinneth in putting himselfe forward to that place for the which he is not meet 2. He must propound unto himselfe as the chiefe and principall end the glorie of God and the edifiing of the people and not for maintenance or living sake offer himselfe 3. Hee must take heed that he use no indirect or unlawfull meanes by flatterie or briberie to creepe in and intrude himselfe 4. These conditions being well observed and these times withall considered wherein partly because of the great number and choice to bee had of sufficient men but most of all because vertue and learning is not duely respected and rewarded preferment is not offered unasked and undesired he that desireth a place in the Church as the Apostle saith desireth a good thing and therein is not to be discommended QUEST V. When the Tabernacle began to be set up Vers. 17. THus was the Tabernacle reared up the first day of the first moneth c. 1. Cajetane hereupon noteth that the Tabernacle was set up before one yeare was expired since their comming up out of Egypt whence they departed upon the fifteenth day of the first moneth so that there wanted fifteene daies of a full yeare This collection is verie evident out of the text and therefore Lippoman following the Septuagint had no reason to reject it 2. Simlerus thinketh that the Tabernacle which could not be set up in one day was begun to be set up before and now finished on the first day of the moneth which used to be a solemne day and it is like they kept not that solemnitie untill the Tabernacle was erected But it is evident by the text that Moses began now only to set up the Tabernacle upon the first day of the first moneth because the Lord appointeth that day for Moses to set it up in vers 2. therefore he began not before And the day wherein they began to set it up might be kept as a solemne day as well as the day wherein it was finished yet it may be thought that the feast of the new moone was not yet observed the Priests being not yet consecrated to whose office it belonged to solemnize that day with sacrifices 3. R. Salomon saith there were two erections and setting up of the Tabernacle one was quotidiana every day when it was set up in the morning and taken downe againe at night the other was stabilis erectio the sure or firme erecting of it which continued till the campe removed the first erecting of it began seven daies before but the second solemne and stable erecting was upon the first day of the first moneth Contra. This is the Rabbines owne device that the Tabernacle was every day set up and taken downe againe for it is contrarie to the text which saith that the cloud of the Lord was upon the Tabernacle by day and fire by night vers 37. untill the cloud ascended and then they went forward but if the Tabernacle were taken downe in the night the fire could not rest upon it 4. Calvine taketh this erecting of the Tabernacle for the removing of it from without the campe where it was set up and bringing of it within the host for his opinion is that the Tabernacle was set up before Moses going up the second time into the mount when he removed it without the host chap. 33.7 Contra. But that Tabernacle was not this great Tabernacle but another where Moses used to consult with God as is further shewed in the handling of that place And the great Tabernacle was made after Moses second comming downe as it is set downe in storie which without great necessitie is not to be transposed and as soone as the work was finished they brought it to Moses and then the Lord spake to Moses to set it up 5. Wherefore I encline rather to thinke that Moses according to the Lords commandement began onely upon the first day of the first moneth to set up the Tabernacle and so continued untill he had finished for in one day it was not all set up as it may be gathered chap. 7.1 VVhen Moses had finished the setting up of the Tabernacle hee did not then begin and finish in one day QUEST VI. What Testimonie was put into the Arke Vers. 20. HE tooke and put the testimonie in the Arke c. There were in and beside the Arke these foure things the tables of the Law the pot of Manna Aarons rod and the booke of the Law which Moses writ but none of these are heere understood by this Testimonie but only the tables of the Law 1. The pot of Manna was a testimonie of Gods mercie that he had fed the Israelites with the bread of heaven fortie yeares in the wildernesse but that was not this Testimonie for Aaron is bid to take the pot of Manna and put it there chap. 16.33 who was
not yet consecrated Priest 2. And for the same reason Aarons rod though it were a testimony that God had chosen Aaron his seed for the priesthood yet it was not this Testimonie for at that time when Aarons rod budded he was the high Priest but at the erection of the Tabernacle Aaron was not yet consecrated 3. Neither was the booke which Moses writ this Testimonie for that is supposed to bee the booke of Deuteronomie which was not yet written and that booke was given by Moses to the Levites by them to be put in the side of the Arke Deut. 31.26 but this Testimonie was put by Moses himselfe in the Arke 4. Therefore this Testimonie was no other than the tables of the Law called the tables of the Testimonie chap. 31.18 and 34.29 which were so named because they testified Gods will unto the people and were witnesses and testimonies of the league and covenant which the Lord made with his people Tostatus quaest 6. QUEST VII Whether the tables of the law were put into any other Arke beside the Arke of the Testament Vers. 20. HE put the Testimonie in the Arke 1. R. Salom. thinketh that the tables of the Law were put into another Arke which Moses made and when the Arke with the Mercie seate was finished then he put them into that for there were seven moneths betweene Moses comming downe with the second tables untill the Tabernacle was erected when and not before Moses put them into the Arke of the most holy place it is not like that all that time the tables were kept without an Arke and Deut. 10.5 Moses saith I made an Arke of Shittim wood and hewed two tables of stone c. There was then one Arke made before Moses hewed the tables of stone 2. But this Arke heere mentioned by Moses was none other than that which was made by Bezaleel for the tables of stone for Moses saith Deut. 10.5 there they be they were at that time long after the erecting of the Tabernacle in the same Arke before mentioned but that was the Arke of the Sanctuarie And during all that time after Moses comming downe the tables of the Law were kept in some convenient place till the Arke was made so that it is not necessarie to imagine any other Arke beside that Tostatus qu. 7. QUEST VIII When the Priests were consecrated whether at the erecting of the Tabernacle or after Vers. 27. ANd burnt incense thereon Moses did supplie the office of the Priests in burning of incense setting up the lampes offering sacrifices upon the brasen altar at the erecting up of the Tabernacle because as yet Aaron and his sonnes were not consecrated 1. Some thinke that their consecration began together with the erecting of the Tabernacle and so continued seven daies and the eigâ—th day their consecration was finished as is set forth Levit. 8.8 and then began the Princes their offerings for twelve daies together Numb 7. and some will have these seven daies to end at the first day of the first moneth of the second yeare some to begin then as Tostat. qu. 2. But neither of these can stand for as soone as Moses had made an end of consecrating the Tabernacle the Princes the same day began to offer Numb 7.2 But they offered not before the people were numbred for they were the Princes over them that were numbred Now these Princes with their people were not numbred before the first day of the second moneth of the second yeare Numb 1.1 therefore the erecting of the Tabernacle was not finished and the Priests consecrated in the space of seven daies immediately before the first day of the first moneth or immediately after 2. R. Salom. hath a conceit that there was a double erecting of the Tabernacle one was every day for seven daies in which time the Priests also had their seven daies of consecration which ended upon the first of the first moneth and then there was another solemne erection of the Tabernacle to continue when the Princes began to offer But this Rabbinicall conceit is confuted before qu. 4. neither did the Princes offer in the first but in the second moneth as is shewed before 3. Some thinke that Aaron was first consecrated before the Tabernacle that he might consecrate it and the other things thereunto belonging But it is evident in the text that Moses is commanded to anoint the Tabernacle himselfe and all things therein Simlerus 4. Yet it is not to be supposed that the whole Tabernacle and all the implements and vessels thereof were sanctified before Aaron and his sonnes were consecrated for immediately after that Moses had made an end of sanctifying the Tabernacle and the instruments therof the very same day began the twelve Princes of the tribes to offer the summe of whose offering for sacrifice was twelve bullockes twelve rammes twelve lambes for a burnt offering twelve hee-goats for a sin offering 24. bullocks 60 rammes 60. lambes 60. hee-goats for peace offerings Numb 7.8.88 all these could not bee sacrificed by Moses alone therefore it cannot be but that Aaron and his sonnes were consecrated before the Princes brought their offerings 5. I incline therefore to Iunius opinion that after Moses had consecrated the Tabernacle with the instruments thereof then last of all hee consecrated the Altar with the instruments thereof and because the Priests office was most exercised about the altar at the same time also their consecration concurred with the sanctifying of the Altar or went immediately before And this may bee gathered that the Altar was last of all consecrated and somewhat after the rest because they are distinguished the anointing of the Tabernacle and all the instruments thereof and the anointing of the Altar with the instruments thereof Numb 7.1 6. Seeing then that the Princes began to offer immediately after the Altar was anointed which was the second day of the second moneth for upon the first day of the moneth the people were numbred Numb 1.1 and they were so numbred before the offerings began Numb 7.2 it is like as Iunius well noteth upon that place that the first moneth was spent in the erecting of the Tabernacle and the consecrating thereof QUEST IX Why the Priests were commanded to wash their hands and their feet Vers. 31. SO Moses and Aaron and his sonnes washed their feet thereat c. 1. The literall reason why they were commanded to wash their hands and their feet was this that seeing it was meet that they which should handle the holy things should approach even with pure hands in respect of outward cleannesse these parts are especially commanded to be washed because the hands with handling touching of things and the feet with walking are most apt of all the parts of the bodie to gather soile 2. There might be uncleannesse also in other parts of the bodie as by nocturnall pollutions by the flux of seed and such like but in these cases the partie was uncleane sometimes onely
4. Iunius placeth it neare unto Jerusalem being the same Valley where Absolon reared his Pillar 2. Sam. 18.18 and hereunto the Septuagint agree which interpret in the Valley of Melchisedeck And it seemeth indeed not to be farre off from Salem which is Jerusalem where Melchisedeck was King because he met Abraham there with bread and wine 5. It was not at this time but afterward called the Kings Dale Vatab. not because the Kings used there to exercise and disport themselves Chald. neither was it so named of some King Calvin but rather it was called the Kings Dale for the excellency of it and therefore is thought to be the same which was called Vallis illustris the famous Valley Perer. QVEST. XVI Who Melchisedeck was Vers. 18 MElchisedeck c. 1. Origen and Dydimus thinke that Melchisedeck was an Angell but the text is contrary that maketh him King of Salem 2. Some thinke that this Melchisedeck was the Holy Ghost which opinion is defended by the Author of the questions of the old and new Testament cha 109. which goe under Augustines name but it is none of Augustines worke for he numbreth the Melchsedechians among the Heretikes here 's 34. and it is an erronious opinion 1. For this Melchisedeck is said to be a Priest to the most high God but every Priest is taken from among men Heb. 5.1 2. If the Holy Ghost was a Priest unto God he therein should be inferiour unto God and so not God for in the God-head there is equality 3. Neither did the Holy Ghost ever descend from heaven to be incarnate but onely the sonne of God Ioh. 3.13 4. And whereas the Apostle saith that Melchisedeck was without father or mother and without beginning of dayes or end of life Heb. 7.3 whence they would enforce that Melchesedeck was not a mortall man but of an immortall nature the Apostle hath there relation onely to the story in this place Melchisedeck is not set forth in story by his kindred his birth and death he had both father and mother was borne and died but there is no mention made of it and so Hierome expoundeth that word used by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 genealogie is not expressed or mentioned 3. A third opinion there is that Melchisedeck was a King of Canaan and not of Abrahams line of which opinion were Irenaeus Eusebius Caesarion Apollinarius Eustathius as Hierome testifieth and among the new Writers Calvin Iunius Musculus Mercerus Pererius with others 1. Pererius urgeth that place Heb. 7.6 He whose kindred is not counted among them which proveth not that Melchisedeck simply was not of Abrahams kindred but that it was not so expressed in story 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius saith so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not rehearsed in genealogie here used by the Apostle is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without kindred vers 3. 2. And seeing Canaan was under Gods curse and Sem had the chiefe blessing how it is like that one of Canaan should blesse Abraham of Sem. 3. And the Apostle concludeth that Melchisedeck was greater than Abraham because he blessed him but none of the Canaanites which were the cursed seed could be greater than Abraham the father of the faithfull of blessed Sem. 4. The fourth opinion of the rest most probable is that this Melchisedeck was Sem which opinion is strengthned with many arguments 1. Sem onely of all men living was greater than Abraham as Syracides saith Sem and Seth were in great honour among the children of men 49.16 though Arphaxad Selah and Heber yet lived yet Sem was the most honourable in respect of his yeares his knowledge who saw the old world his prerogative in Noahs blessing and whereas Abrahams predecessors were Idolaters none of Sems progenitors are noted that way therefore seeing Melchisedeck was greater than Abraham and none then living was greater than Sem he is most like to be the Melchisedeck 2. That was the place of Sems dwelling whence in time Iapheths sonnes should learne to dwell in the Tabernacle of God so reasoneth Midras but from Sion came forth the law and word from Jerusalem Isay 2.3 at Salem therefore were the tents of Sem. 3. Hierome alleageth this reason used by some that Melchisedeck brought forth bread and wine to Abraham for his repast seeing he owed this duty to his grand-childe Evagr. tom 4. 4. Melancthon thus argueth therefore God brought Abraham to Sem the father of his ancestors to joyne together a notable company of the Church 5. Some use this reason A Kingdome is more ancient than a tyranny but unlesse we make Sem to be Melchisedeck we cannot plainly prove that a King reigned before Nimrod treat of Melchis 6. Melchisedeck is interpreted a King of righteousnesse this Melchisedeck had the knowledge of the true justice and righteousnesse by faith in Christ but in all the Scripture shall we read of none called to the faith but men acquainted with Abrahams house with himselfe or Isaacks line or the children of the East the sonnes of Keturah in the booke of Iob. 7. That this Melchisedeck a King of Canaan should bee Sem agreeth to the prophesie Gen. 9.27 Let Canaan be his servant 8. Also in that he is called a Priest of the most high God This also agreeth to Sem who had that prerogative of Priest-hood not as some Hebrewes thinke by his birth-right for Iapheth was elder but by his fathers blessing Blessed be the God of Sem who was more like to be this great high Priest of Sems God than Sem himselfe 9. Melchisedeck was King of Salem which signifieth peace and indeed this Salem had a speciall prerogative of peace for when the foure Kings smote other parts of the Countrey of Canaan as is set forth in this chapter it is not like that Salem should have beene spared if the King thereof had beene a Canaanite if there had not beene great respect to the person of aged Melchisedeck or Sem. 10. Where Melchisedeck is set forth without father or mother beginning of life or end of dayes this also most fitly agreeth to Sem who was borne before the floud whose father Noah was now dead who lived 600. yeares so that no man living at that time could remember his birth or death or parents 11. Seeing also that Hebers language was preserved in Salem as may appeare by the interpretation of the name of Melchisedeck It is most probable that this King of Salem was of that line who together with the true faith retained that holy language 12. Lastly seeing Melchisedeck was a type of Christ Psal. 10. that came of Sem and no type or figure of Christ is expressed in Scripture but of Sems line none is more like to be this representer and foreshewer of Christs everlasting Priesthood than Sem himselfe then living It is most unlike that any Priest not of Sem should shadow forth the high Priest Christ of Sem and