Achab vsed against Naboth hee coueted but his vineyard Dauid desireth an others wife Achab wrought this onely by his wicked wife Iezabel but Dauid doth this himselfe Martyr 3. And Vriah his innocencie maketh Dauids sinne more grieuous hee which all his life before hated fraud and deceit now hateth simplicitie and truth hee which spared his cruell enemie Saul before now pursueth vnto death a most faithfull friend and dutifull subiect And further he maketh Ioab accessarie to his sinne who though his sinne was the lesse because the Kings authoritie forced him yet is it not thereby excused It might be Dauid pretended some capitall offence to haue beene committed by Vriah yet Ioab was not ignorant of the Lawe that none were to bee put to death but vnder two or three witnesses hee therefore should herein haue obeyed God rather then man Mar. 10. Quest. v. 17. Why it pleased God that Vriah in this manner should be slaine 1. In that God suffred a iust and innocent man in this manner to be cut off it need no more to call Gods iustice in question then that he suffered Iohn Baptist to be beheaded Peter and Paul to be slaine Euerie one is borne to die for death is the stipend or wages of sinne God therefore whose counsells are most secret yet most iust doth for some causes best knowne to himselfe giue way sometime to vnlawfull attempts 2. And who can tell whether Vriah had not some sinnes of his owne for the which he is chastised as in attributing too much to his wife and in suffring himselfe to be mis-led often by her or such like But we must not howsoeuer it is complaine of the Lords proceeding herein as vniust Mart. 11. Quest. v. 20. Of Ioabs answer returned vnto Dauid 1. In Ioab though it was commendable in him in that he was conuersant in the sacred histories as appeareth by the instance giuen of Abimelech yet in beeing so seruiceable to the vnlawfull desire of the king he sinned diuersly both in condemning a man his cause beeing vnheard and in accomplishing the kings desire with the losse of many beside Osiand 2. The messenger also plaieth his part to picke a thank who staied not till Dauid should obiect as Ioab had before conceiued but presently telleth Dauid of the death of Vriah which he knew would be acceptable vnto him 3. Dauid also dissembleth the matter to the intent that neither this cruell commaundement nor Ioabs fawning obedience should be discouered to the messenger Geneuens 12. Quest. v. 27. Of these words and shee became his wife Whether it be lawfull to marrie her with whome adulterie formerly was committed 1. Nothing is defined directly concerning this matter in the Scripture for Leu. 18. where many impediments of marriage are rehearsed and diuerse prohibitions of marriage yet no mention is made of this barre of adulterie going before but the reason hereof may be this because the adulterer and adultresse by Moses Law were to be stoned vnto death and so there could be no question of this matter 2. But it hath beene decreed by many Pontificiall decrees that the marriage of such who committed adulterie before should be actually void as is extant in the Extrauagant in diuerse places Extrav titul de eo qui duxeratt vxorem quam polluerat c. in tit de convers infidel can laudab But this example of Dauid convinceth that opinion whose marriage with Bethsheba the Lord ratified and confirmed 3. Wherefore the best resolution is this that such mariages are indeed altogether vnfit and inconuenient for if this were vsually permitted for the adulterer and adultresse to marie together it would giue occasion for one of them to practise against the life of an other yet though such mariages are not conuenient and may with good cause be letted and preuented and such by the Magistrate may be punished yet such marriages beeing consummate are not for any such pretense to be dissolued for then Dauids mariage had beene vnlawfull Osiand it is adulterie following after not going before that breaketh mariage knot see more of this question Synop. Cent. 3. er 96. 13. Quest. v. 27. How the thing which Dauid had done displeased the Lord. 1. In that it is said this fact displeased God there is an euident distinction and difference made betweene the thing and the person for Dauid in respect of his election was beloued of God but this thing which he had committed namely the adulterie with Bathshebah and the murther of Vriah the Lord abhorred neither is it to be held as an absurd thing that one in respect of his present estate should bee an enemie vnto God and so displeasing vnto him and yet in respect of his election beloued of God Rom. 5.8 as S. Paul saith God setteth forth his loue toward vs seeing that while we were yet sinners Christ died for vs. 2. We must learne herein to be like vnto God to loue the persons of our enemies and yet to hate and abhorre their vices as God here hateth the sinnes of Dauid yet loued his person as elected vnto life Mart. 14. Quest. Of the greatnes of Dauids sinne of adulterie and murther 1. Concerning adulterie in generall it is a most grieuous and abominable sinne as may be made plaine by these reasons 1. It is against the lawe of the creation and the first institution of marriage that hath made man and wife but one flesh which is diuided by adulterie 2. The effects thereof are vile and abhominable for adulterie bringeth forth oftentimes murther â—â— Psal. 51. hom 3. and poisoning as Chrysostome sheweth 3. Cyprian writeth that in some Churches the Christian Bishops vtterly refused to receiue adulterers into the peace of the Cchurh they held it to be so grieuous a sinne Lib 4 eâ—ist 2. 4. By the sinne of adulterie great iniurie is offred to posteritie and so to the common-wealth in the commixtion of seede Ad lâ—g Iul de adult in paâ—d in which regard Bartalus maketh it the next offence against the common wealth vnto treason 5. Thales Milesius held periurie not to be worse then adulterie 6. Yea Chrysostome maketh adulterie worse then idolatry hom 62. iâ— Iohann because the one is a pollution of marriage and maketh a dissolution thereof so doth not the other But though this argument conclude not for though in respect of mariage adulterie is the more grieuous yet simply it is not and idolatrie is fornication against God the other is against man yet these former reasons doe sufficiently lay open the vilenesse of this sinne Mart. 2. And Dauids sinne both of adulterie and murder is amplified 1. in respect of the thing or obiect which was not siluer or gold lands or possessions but the chastitie and life of man 2. The person against whome the sinne was first committed was god whose lawe was contemned and secondarily the persons of Vriah and his wife who beeing an alone woman her husband beeing gone into
some punishment is inflicted vpon him 1. The Romanists vpon this example doe ground that assertion of theirs that the sinne beeing remitted the punishment may still remaine which they make the ground of their purgatorie-paines where for a while they whose sinnes are pardoned do yet indure some torment 2. But this doctrine hath no warrant from Gods word for where God once remitteth sinnes he remembreth them no more they shall not be mentioned Esech 18.22 but if the punishment of sinne should remaine there a remembrance of sinne is also reuiued wherefore together with the sinne paena vltionis the punishment of reuenge is remitted those penalties which remaine are for the example of others and the further admonition of the parties themselues non sunt paen◠irati sed amantis Dei they are the chastisements not of an angrie but a louing God Mar. 12. Quest. Of the diuerse punishments of adulterie The punishment which is imposed vpon Adulterie is either diuine or humane and this is either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall which shall be breifly shewed in their order 1. The Diuine censure is either that which is grounded vpon the law of nature or declared more euidently in the Scripture By the first law of nature euen the Gentiles and others before the law written iudged adulterie worthie of death as Abimelech decreed that whosoeuer touched Isaak or his wife should die the death Gen. 26.11 Potiphar adiudged Ioseph for the like suspicion though most false vnto the place prison of capitall offenders Gen. 39. Iudah gaue sentence that Thamar who had plaied the whoore beeing promised and so espoused to Selah to be burned By the positiue and written law of Moses the adulterer and adulteresse were to die though the one were not actually maried but onely betrothed Deut. 22.23 2. Humane Ciuill lawes were of diuerse sorts some were corporall in the chastisment of the bodie without death The Egyptians as witnesseth Diodorus Siculus did cut off the nose of the adulteresse and did beate the adulterer with many stripes almost to death Zalenius among the Locrensians made a law that the adulterer should loose both his eyes and it so falling out that his sonne was taken in adulterie he to satisfie the law caused one of his sonnes eyes to be put out and one of his owne as Aelianus testifieth lib. 13. Among the Germanes witnesse Cornelius Tacitus the adulteresse was stript naked her haire beeing cut off and her husband beat her vp and down with a staffe The people called Laciadae as Suidas or Placiadae did punish the adulterer about his priuie parts Some punished adulterie with publike shame and infamie as Plutarke writeth how the people Gortinei would bring them forth into publike view Plut. in Prob. which were taken in adulterie and crowne them with wooll shewing thereby their effeminate nature the Cumians set the adulteresse vpon a stone where she was mocked of all the people and then caried about vpon an asse and euer after that was in disdaine called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an asse-rider Among the Romans the law of Augustus Caesar called lex Iulia thus prouided against those which committed adulterie 1. The adulterer and adulteresse were both held as infamous persons the adulteresse straight after she was deprehended in the fact the adulterer after he was publikely condemned 2. They lost the dowrie and marriage gift 3. The accuser in this case could not be agreed with for money as in other capitall crimes 4. The woman could not accuse the husband of adulterie but the husband the wife or her father or her brethren 5. It was not lawfull for the man to kepe his wife conuicted of adulterie but he was held as a bawde to his own wife neither was it lawfull for any to marrie her 6. By this law they were punished which did but sollicite others to adulterie 7. The souldiers which committed adulterie were discharged from their coulors Beside this ignominie and shame among the Romans such incurred the adulteresse was brought forth publikely in her husbands gowne and sometime such were condemned to the brothelhouses and stewes But Theodosius abolished that euill vse least sinne should by this meanes be added vnto sinne Some haue punished adulterie with death as the Arabians as Strabo witnesseth Among what nations adulterie wa◠punished by death lib. 16. Saletus the Cratonian made a law that adulterers should be burned aliue as Lucianus testifieth And beeing himselfe detected of adulterie hauing by an oration in his owne defense almost perswaded the people to haue compassion toward him he voluntarily leaped into the fire Among the Athenians it was lawfull to kill the adulterer taken in the deed doing as is euident in the oration of Lysias which treateth of the death of Eratosthenes the adulterer Among the Romans likewise it was lawfull so to doe in the time of Cato before the Iulian law as Seneca in his declamations putteth the case of one that disinherited his sonne because taking his wife with one in adulterie and bidding him to kill them both he refused to doe it But afterward this libertie was restrained the husband was forbidden to kill his wife taken in adulterie the adulterer he might least that men by this meanes might haue practised against their wiues Further Iulius Caesar put one to death for playing the adulterer with a certen matrone Opilius Macrinus vsed to burne the adulterer and adulteresse together Aurelianus as Vopiscus testifieth caused a souldier which had defloured his hosts wife to be rent in sunder by the toppes of trees tied to his bodie Augustus caused Proclus to die for adulterie Constantine made a law decreeing capitall punishment vnto adulterers which continued vntill the time of Hierome who writeth of a woman suspected of adulterie seauen times smitten with a sword Iustinian after mitigated this law on the part of the adulteresse Epist ad Innoc. decreeing such to be beaten with clubbes and then thrust into a monasterie but concerning the adulterer the punishment remained still Tiberius banished the adultresse 200. miles out of the citie the adulterer was expelled out of Italie and Africa And such were the ciuill punishments inflicted vpon such as committed adulterie Mart. 3. And such for the most part were the ciuill ordinances and decrees against adulterie as we haue seene the Ecclesiasticall censures were also of diuerse sorts 1. In some places they denied the peace of the Church to adulterers neuer admitting them to the communion some recieued such but after a long time of penance Cypriane misliked their rigour that vtterly denie reconciliation vnto them but altogether exclude them lib. 4. epistol c. 2 2. The Ancyrane synod imposed vpon adulterers seauen yeares penance c. 14. which the Eliberine counsell brought to fiue yeares 3. Ministers and Clergie men committing adulterie were for euer remooued from their ministerie distinct 81. c. 11.12 4. The councell of Neocaesarea decreed that if a Ministers wife fell into the sinne of adulterie hee should dismisse
her or else leaue his Ministerie and by the Eliberine councell if he did it not hee was denied for euer the communion of the Church 5. If a Lay-mans wife were guiltie of adulterie he neuer could be admitted vnto the order of the ministerie by the Canons 6. It was likewise decreed that the adulterer should not be suffered to marie with the adulteresse 7. Iustinians constitution thrusteth the woman offending into a monasterie and after two yeares giueth libertie for the husband to take her out but it punisheth the adulterer with death And such for the most part also were Ecclesiasticall Constitutions against Adulterie 13. Quest. What may iustly be excepted against in the former constitutions against adulterie 1. In the Ciuill punishments which were inflicted among the Heathen these things were amisse 1. They punished adulterie with death leauing other greater sinnes vnpunished as their Idolatrie and blasphemie against God which was the fountaine and very beginning of all vncleannes 2. They were partiall giuing the man libertie to accuse the woman but the woman was denied that priuiledge to accuse the man 3. They for euer seperated the adulterer and adulteresse whereas the rule of charitie and Christian religion alloweth reconciliation vpon repentance 2. In the Ecclesiasticall Canons it was to bee misliked 1. That they vtterly denied the communion in some places vnto adulterers for Dauid hauing repented of his sinne was receiued againe to the peace of the Church 2. In that they allowed no reconciliation betweene a Clergie man and his adulterous wife for why should lesse mercie be shewed and practised among them then in other callings and degrees 3. In vtterly making vnlawfull the marriage betweene the adulterer and adulteresse indeed if they contracted marriage the former wife and husband liuing it was not fit for it might giue occasion of suspition that they might practise against and lie in waite for their life but such marriages in other cases beeing consummate are not to be dissolued for then had the mariage betweene Dauid and Bathshebah bin vnlawfull 4. The greatest fault now is in shewing too much lenitie to adulterous persons they should for a time bee excluded from the Church with the incestuous younge man among the Corinthians till they are sufficiently humbled and vpon their teares and repentance and true contrition be receiued into the Church againe 14. Quest. Whether an adulterous woman vpon her repentance may not be receiued againe of her husband By the Iulian law they were forbidden either to be entertained again of their husbands or to be married to another but it is more agreeable to Christianitie that there should be reconciliation betweene the innocent and offending partie vpon her true repentance And the constitution of Iustinian was more equall in this behalf which gaue libertie vnto the man after two yeares to redeeme his wife for her adulterie condemned to a monasterie the reasons are these 1. Augustine thus reasoneth Deus est imitandus c. God is to be imitated lib. 2. ad Pollentium de adult coniâ—g his people Israel diuerse times committed spirituall fornication and fell into idolatrie the which the Lord did for a time as dismisse them and giue them ouer to the hands of their enemies but he was againe vpon their repentance reconciled vnto them 2. Dauid receiued his wife Michol beeing maried to another wherein she committed manifest adulterie for there was no diuorce before betweene Dauid and her 3. Seeing vpon repentance the adulterous woman is restored vnto the kingdom of God much more is it fit she should returne to the societie of her husband si regno caelorum restituta est non potest toro tuo restitui if she be restored to the kingdome of heauen can she not be restored to thy bed 2. The counsell of Arles decreed further Extra de adâ—â—â— câ—p â—1 vâ— seâ— si adulteram paenituerit debet vir eum recipere if the adulterous woman repent her the man ought to receiue her the former reasons brought by Augustine tend to perswade the lawfulnes and equitie in receiuing the penitent offender not to impose a necessitie as this Canon doth for seeing the Gospel giueth libertie to dismisse the wife for fornication he sinneth not that vseth this libertie yet he doth the better that vpon the womans repentance Matth. 5. â—â— yeldeth somewhat of his strict and rigorous right to receiue her againe 3. But where the partie offending hath no remorse there if the innocent partie should admit of a reconciliation he should seeme to be particeps iniquitatis partaker of the sinne as the said Counsell resolueth 15. Quest. Whether a man ought to accuse his wife beeing dismissed for adulterie 1. It is here to be considered whether the partie offending continue in the sinne of adulterie stil for in this case after priuate admonition by freinds taking no place Christs rule then is to be followed to tell it to the Church that by publike authoritie the partie may be reclaimed and amended 2. Though the partie be penitent yet if the sinne be notorious and publike and the innocent partie therein should seeme by silence and conniuence to boulster out the others sinne or if there be an adulterous seede which is like to be taken for the heire of the familie if the sinne be kept secret in these cases the Church is to be made acquainted for the preuenting of both these mischiefes 3. Where none of these dangers are feared it is better for the innocent partie to follow Iosephs example who thought secretly to send Marie away being yet ignorant how she became with child P. Martyr 16. Quest. Whether adulterie be a more grieuous sinne in the man or the woman 1. Some doe thus obiect to shew that the sinne is greater on the womans behalf 1. Because by the Iulian law among the Romans it was lawfull for the man to accuse the woman of adulterie but not for the woman to accuse the man and before that law it was lawfull for the man to kill his wife taken in adulterie but not for the woman to doe the like to the man 2. It was lawfull by the auncient Romane laws for the man to diuorce or seperate his wife but not for the wife to be diuorced from her husband 3. By the law of Vespasian as Suetonius writeth the woman that did companie with a seruant became her selfe bound but the like seruitude was not laid vpon the man offending in the like 4. In Ecclesiasticus cap. 7.27 and in other places of that booke great charge is giuen vnto parents to keepe their daughters but the like care is not enioyned for their sonnes Contra. These arguments may easily be answered 1. These were but humane laws some of them were vniust and cruell as to giue libertie to men to slay their wiues taken in adulterie and the Romans themselues by the Iulian law abolished that cruell custome the other lawes which giue preheminence vnto the man respected the
politicke state which was more hindered by the adulterie of women in the confusion of families and suborning of false heires in which respect indeed the fault is greater on the womans side 2. So also it was made lawfull by some Imperiall lawes for the women to seeke diuorce and separation from their husbands as appeareth by the law of Theodosius C. de repudijs in L. Cons. 3. The Romane lawes did more punish the womans offence for the aforesaid reason because the politike state receiued greater dammage thereby 4. Parents also are there charged to giue vnto their sonnes good education but the daughters are more carefully to be kept because by their fall their fathers house is defiled 2. Now that the mans offence is the greater it may be thus argued 1. because the womans sex is weaker and so much the more to be pitied 2. The man is the head of the woman and ought to giue her a good example 3. The marriage faith is mutually giuen and therefore it is broken on the mans behalfe as well as the womans 4. Men vsually are agents and entisers of women and they are entised 3. Wherefore the best resolution is this that in respect of the mutuall bond of mariage and faith of each giuen to other the offence on both sides is equall but their persons considered the man sinneth more because he is the head And in regard of the commonwealth the womans fault is more daungerous in the confusion of families and in obtruding false and supposed heires Now yet the causes why the womans offence is counted more odious the case being the same are rendered to be these two quia viri liberius agunt non habent peccata latentia vindictam the men are more readie free to accuse their wiues women are not so forward Caus. 32. qu 5. cap. 23. beeing restrained by the modestie of their sex and the mens faults are more secret and so escape vnpunished See more of this question as likewise whether adulterie is to be punished by death to the which opinion P. Martyr enclineth here Hexapl. in Exod. qu. 8.9 vpon the seauenth commandement c. 20. but somewhat of the same question shall here be inserted 17. Quest. Whether the sinne of adulterie ought to be punished by death 1. P. Martyr laboureth by these reasons to prooue the affirmatiue part 1. Death by the law of Moses is inflicted vpon the adulterous persons Leuit. 20.10 the adulterer and adulteresse are both to die 2. The order of the commandements sheweth as much for all the transgressions of the first table as idolatrie blasphemie violating of the Sabbath and of the two first commandements of the second table as disobedience to parents murther were punished by death so also adulterie then at the eight commandement the sword staieth so likewise neither the 9. or 10. commandement were inforced with the penaltie of death 3. Seeing adulterie is more against the politike state then theft simply it should rather be punished by death then the other for who had not rather loose part of his goods then his wife her honestie many intricate questions doe arise as whether by diuorce the band of marriage bee dissolued whether it be lawfull to marrie after diuorce whether the innocent party only is to be suffered to marrie whether the parties offending ought to be reconciled 5. By the lenitie of punishment adulteries encrease and this vice groweth to be publike and common Contra. 1. That law of Moses was iudiciall and politike it specially concerned the policie and state of that commonwealth as shall be shewed afterward therefore it simply bindeth not now 2. Neither doth the sword beare sway now vnder the Gospel in the punishing of the transgressions of all the former commandements vnto the seauenth by death for it were too much rigour to giue sentence of death for euerie breach of the Sabbath or for euerie disobedience to Parents neither doth the sword stay at the 8. commaundement for some kind of theft by the lawe of God is iudged worthie of death as followeth presently to be shewed and some kind of false witnesse for he was to be done vnto as he thought to doe vnto his brother Deut. 19.18 If hee were a false witnesse against his brothers life his owne life should be payed for it 3. Adulterie is more against the commonwealth then simple theft but not then euerie kind of theft And there are fowre kinds of theft by the law of God censured by the sentence of death 1. theft of men Exod. 21.16 2. theft with violence as breaking into an house Exod. 22.3 and of the same sort is all kind of robberie 3. sacriledge the stealing of things consecrated to holy things which was Achans case Ios. 7.4 and wanton theft when one stealeth not of necessitie to satisfie his hunger but of wantonnesse as he which hauing many sheepe of his owne tooke his poore neighbours onely sheepe 2. Sam. 12.3 Dauid iudgeth such an one worthie of death 4. Such questions are not superfluous and vnnecessarie for then our blessed Sauiour would not haue medled with them to shew in what cases it was lawfull for a man to dismisse his wife and marrie another Matth. 5. and 19. 5. It is not for that adulterie is not punished by death but because either straight punishments are not laid vpon adulterers and too much lenitie is shewed that this sinne so ouerfloweth in the world 2. Now on the contrarie it may thus be reasoned that adulterie is not now necessarily to be sentenced by death 1. Moses Iudicials doe not now necessarily bind but in regard of the morall equitie of them P. Martyr saith non magis not astringere ciuiles leges c. quà m cermoniales but that cannot be safely affirmed for Moses ceremonialls are absolutely and simply abrogated and to reuiue them were to violate and infringe the libertie of the gospel but the Iudicialls are left indifferent Christian Magistrates as they are not simply bound to retaine them so they may vse them as they see it to bee fitting to the commonwealth Now that this was one of the Iudicialls of Moses it is euident by this because it was peculiar to that state and pollicie that the tribes and families should be distinguished and not confounded or mixt together therefore it was fit that adulterie should be seuerely punished by the which commeth the confusion of houses corruption of blood subornation of false heires 2. Other iudiciall and penall lawes annexed to the morall precepts are not nowe in force as to put to death euerie one that violateth the Sabbaticall rest or euery one that is stubburne against their Parents 3. By Moses lawe onely that adulterie was punished which was committed with an other wife Leuit. 20.10 for the man to take a concubine to his wife or one wife to another was not then counted adulterie nor yet was punished by death for then it would follow that Abraham Iacob Dauid with others vnder
the warre ought by Dauid to haue beene protected Vriah himselfe also was an innocent and harmelesse man and therefore the sinne was the greater 4. Dauids person also beeing considered the offence was the heauier who was a Prophet and a King and therefore gaue great offence by this euill example Borrh. 3. The Hebrewes to excuse Dauids sinne haue deuised that it was the vse that they which went to battell gaue their wiues a bill of separation to marrie where they would But this is their fiction for if there had beene any such vse to make it lawfull to marie such women so separated by bill of diuorce what needed Dauid so to haue practised against Vriah and why did the Prophet afterward reprooue him But if they say such a bill was but to take place after the husbands death then was it superfluous for by death without any such bill the marriage was fully dissolued Martyr CHAP. 12. 1. Quest. v. 1. Who this Nathan the Prophet was whome the Lord sent to Dauid DAuid had a sonne called Nathan c. 5.14 but he could not bee Nathan the Prophet Mar. as may appeare by these reasons 1. Nathan was borne vnto Dauid in Ierusalem and therefore in respect of his yeares could not then be a Prophet when Dauid consulted with Nathan about the building of God an house which was in the beginning of his raigne in Ierusalem c. 7. 2. Nathan the Prophet is here sent to tell Dauid of his sinne and to declare the iudgements of God against him That the Lord would raise vp euill against him euen out of his owne house Dauids owne sonne had not beene a fit messenger of such hard tydings neither would his speech haue beene so much regarded at Dauids hand 3. Therefore as Dauid had Gad the Seer to aduise him before so now he hath Nathan the Prophet 2. Quest. How long after Dauids adulterie Nathan was sent vnto him 1. It is euident that Dauid slept in this sinne toward 10. moneths Mar. for the child conceiued in adulterie was born presently after this admonition of the Prophet after so long a time Nathan was sent vnto him not as some thinke as watching his best opportunitie because when the heate of mens affections is allayed it is the fittest dealing with them for the more one is grounded by continuance in his sinne the more hardly is he brought to repentance 2. Neither is it like that Dauid in the mean time was otherwise admonished and put in minde of his sinne as by reading the scriptures and by remembring himselfe of Vriah his words vnto him Mart. for it appeareth by Dauids answer to Nathan wherein he giueth sentence against himselfe that Dauid was not yet awaked from his sinne 3. But it pleased God thus long to deferre the Prophets comming vnto him that herein might appeare the weakenesse and impotencie of our nature which is neuer able of it selfe to rise vnto repentance Osiand 4. And God herein also manifesteth his loue toward his elect in that he will not suffer them to lie downe in their sinne but euer calleth them home in time Pellic. 3. Quest. Why Nathan speaketh to Dauid in a parable 1. Iosephus thinketh this to be the reason thereof because Nathan beeing a prudent man considered that Princes were headstrong dum affectibus suis rapiuntur while they are carried with their affections and therefore he concealeth at first the threatening of iudgement but Nathan had experience of Dauids mild nature specially in matters to God-ward and therefore this was not the cause 2. But Nathan speaketh in parable 1. both to keepe a meane and measure in his reprehension that it should not be too sharpe Mar. 2. Non invadit durius quia praenouerat conuertendum hee doth not set vpon him roughly because he knewe that he should be conuerted Pellic. 3. And by this kind of couert speech Dauid is brought to giue sentence against himselfe 3. Some thinke that Nathan spake this vnto Dauid in the hearing and presence of his captaines and Princes but it is more like that Nathan did admonish him priuately the more easily to winne him Mar. 4. And Nathan reuealing vnto Dauid his sinne in particular as though he had bin therein of his counsell receiued this direction no doubt from the Lord. 5. Though Dauid himselfe were a Prophet yet a Prophet is sent vnto him tanquam medicus ad medicum sed sanus ad aegrotum as one Physitian to an other but the sound to the sicke as Chrysostome saith 4. Quest. v. 4. Of the stranger that came to the rich man 1. Rupertus by this stranger vnderstandeth the deuill who came vnto this rich man Dauid who would not be entertained with any of Dauids owne wiues whom Dauid might lawfully vse but stirreth him vp to desire strange flesh 2. Some more fitly by this stranger would haue concupiscence vnderstood which should haue but a strangers entertainement with vs not be as an in-dweller Mart. Osiand 3. But it is not necessarie to presse euery part of a parable it is sufficient if it hold in that wherein the application consisteth as the purpose of the prophet here is to lay open the wrong which Dauid had done in taking his neighbours only wife himselfe hauing many 5. Quest. v. 5. Whether the sentence of death pronounced by Dauid were according to the Lawe The Lawe of Moses against theft was that the theife should restore fiue oxen for one and fowre sheepe for one Exod. 22.1 but here Dauid giueth sentence of death against the oppressor 1. Some thinke that Dauid thus speaketh onely to exaggerate the offence not as meaning he should die like as a Iudge may say to shewe the greatnesse of the male-factors offence that he is worthy of a thousand deaths but it appeareth by Nathans answer afterward vnto Dauid vpon his repentance v. 13. thou shalt not die that Dauids meaning was that such an offender indeede was worthie to die and so Iosephus also vnderstandeth it 2. Some answer that it was in the Iudges power to adde to the punishment or take from it pro ratione circumstantiarum according to the circumstances Martyr which may indeede bee safely affirmed in punishments of the same nature and kind as in pecuniarie mulcts and corporall castigations but to change the kind of the punishment as to inflict death vpon the malefactour where the lawe imposed not the penaltie of death might seeme an open and apparant transgression of the lawe 3. Therefore the best answer is that euen by Moses law some kind of theft might be censured with death as he that did breake thorough an house he might be slaine Exod. 22.3 this theft then beeing ioyned with rapine and violence and beeing a theft of wantonnesse not of necessitie as when one stealeth to satisfie his hunger might iustly receiue the sentence of death 4. And beside Dauid adiudgeth that he should restore foure fold according to the Law Exod. 22.1 but some vnderstandeth dubble fourefold that is
the law that had many wiues or some concubines beside their wiues liued in adultery which is no waies to be admitted and the word adulterium properly signifieth alterius adire thorum to goe vnto an others bedde But now seeing Adulterie is either simplex simple when one of the parties is married or duplex adulterium double adulterie when both parties are married there is no warrant from Moses lawe to punish single adulterie on the mans behalfe with death 4. Our blessed Sauiour Ioh. 8.11 did dismisse the adulterous woman not giuing direction that she should be stoned to death But here diuerse answers are made 1. That because they came to tempt Christ either to accuse him of too much seuerity in condemning her and so he should loose the fauour of the people who commended him for his clemencie or as a transgressor of the law if he freed her he doth so answer the Pharises as that they should neither way haue aduantage against him 2. He doth not condemne her because he medled not with the Magistrates office 3. He sawe her penitent and therefore absolueth her 4. He was no witnesse of her sinne and therefore could not accuse her Mart. Contr. 1. Our blessed Sauiour did not ambitiously seeke the fauour of the people that he needed in that behalfe to suspend his iudgment concerning the rigour of Moses lawe they could haue taken no exception vnto Christ in ratifying of Moses law if it had pleased him that the rigour thereof should haue remained still therefore that was not the cause of his silence therein 2. Though as a Magistrate he would not inflict punishment yet as a teacher hee might haue giuen direction as he did in an other case concerning the bill of diuorce Matth. 19. 3. The inward repentance did not dispense with the outward punishment which was for the example of others 4. Christ needed not in this case to bee a witnesse for there were other witnesses beside that said she was taken in the verie deed doing yet though he neither tooke vpon him to be witnes accuser or iudge in this case our Blessed Sauiour might and in all liklihood would haue giuen direction to take a course according to Moses law if his will had beene to haue that obserued as a perpetuall lawe 5. Wherefore this is most probable that although our blessed Sauiour by this his silence intended not altogeâ—her to abrogate Moses lawe yet it pleased him well it should not be so rigorously executed when he said let him that is among you without sinne cast the first stone at her lib. â— ad Poll. c. 6 7. This place is by Augustine vrged to the same end to shew that adulterie is not necessarily to be met withall by death And in an other place he maketh this application of it that Christ beeing two wayes vrged by the Pharisies if he bid her to be stoned to death they would accuse his seueritie if he set her free they would blame his lenitie therefore Christ giueth such an answer as might preuent both these exceptions in that he saith let him that is without sinne c. iustitiae vox est â—om 10. ser. 47. puniatur peccator sed non à peccatoribus c. let the offender be punished but not by them which are likewise offenders audiamus etiam mansuetudinis vocem c. let vs heare also the voice of clemencie neither doe I condemne thee not that Christ did winke at sinne sed damnauit non hominem sed peccatum he condemned not the partie but the sinne saying Goe sinne no more 6. S. Paul also whereas the lawe of Moses decreeth him to be put to death that should lie with his fathers wife Leuit. 20.11 yet maketh no mention of any such punishment to be imposed vpon the incestuous young man that had taken his fathers wife 1. Cor. 5. and 2. Cor. 2. If it be answered that the Christians had no beleeuing Magistrates then but the sword was in the hand of Pagans yet in such ciuill punishments it was the Apostles mind that they should submit themselues to the ciuil power for he was the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that did euill Rom. 13.4 7. Wherefore it is euident that no certen punishment is appointed vnder the Gospel for adulterie but that it is free for euery state to punish it either by death or by some other grieuous censure according to the qualitie of the sinne As the Egyptian law was to cut off their noses and to disfigure them the Germanes beate them with cudgels Tiberius banished them By these or any like courses adulterie may be sharply enough punished only the fault is when by too much lenitie and conniuence men make but a sport of this sinne 18. Quest. v. 14. Of Nathans words to Dauid thou shalt not die 1. There are three kinds of death a naturall end a violent death and euerlasting death in the next world from these two last Dauid is deliuered that neither hee should die eternally nor presently by the sword or by Gods hand as he had cause to feare Mart. 2. Wherein the Lord sheweth him meâ—cy in reuersing the sentence which he had giuen against himselfe before Borrh. 3. And thus much is insinuated that he should not die for this but others of his housâ— as his child in whome he seemed in some part to die Mart. and though he should not die yet hee was to endure amariora morte things more bitter then death Pellican 4. And here appeareth the difference of the law which in Dauid saith he was the child of death and of the Gospel which by Nathan saith thou shalt 〈◊〉 die Borrh. 19. Quest. v. 14. How Dauid is said to haue caused the enemies of God to blaspheme 1. Some vnderstand it of the peruerse and wicked men in Israel that would take occasion hereby to accuse the Lord of iniustice for preferring Dauid before Saul who was not detected of â—ny such sinne of adulterie But they properly could not be said to be the enemies of God he meaneth such as were professed aduersaries 2. Pet. Martyr referreth it to the triumph of the Ammonites who put the Israelites to flight and slewe diuerse of them together with Vriah and so thereby were occasioned to insult against God 3. Vatablus expoundeth it thus that they should blaspheme God because he had set vp a wicked man to be king 4. But the better sense is to vnderstand it of the generall reproach of religion that the Gentiles seeing Dauid commit such sinnes as were odious among theÌ„ should thereby take occasion to condemne the religion it selfe as false and not him to be true God whom they worshipped Borrh. 20. Quest. v. 14. Why the child dieth borne in adulterie 1. The children may temporally and corporally be punished for the sinnes of their parents who themselues are touched when they see the miserie of their children Osiand 2. But none shall suffer for an other eternall punishment Mart.