quantum praedestinati sunt in noticia Divina as they are ordained to salvation in the knowledge and prescience of God and they that are thus written can never bee blotted out another way they are scripti secundum quid written after a sort not according to the divine prescience or predestination Sed secundum dispositionem in eis actu existentem secundum praesentem justitiam But according to their disposition which is in act in them and according to their present justice and thus are they said to be blotted out not in respect of Gods knowledge as though any thing can fall out against his prescience but in respect of their change from grace into sinne 2. Thomas also to the same purpose some are said to bee blotted out Non secundum rei veritatem sed secundum hominum opinionem Not according to the truth of the thing but in the opinion of men for it is usuall in Scripture ut aliquid dicatur fieri quando innotescit that a thing should be said to be done when it appeareth So some are said to be written in the booke of life quia homines ibi opinantur scriptos propter presentem justitiam because men thinke they are there written in respect of their present justice Then some are there written ex pradestinatione by predestination which can never bee blotted out Some ex gratia in respect of their present grace which they may fall from and so be blotted out And againe in another place he expresseth the same thing in other termes Some are predestinate of God Insâ— ut simpliciter habituri vitam aeternam Simply to have life eternall in themselves and these are so written in the booke of life as they can never be blotted out And some are so written Vt habeant vitam aeternam non in se sed in sua causa To have life eternall not in themselves but in respect of their cause and present state of Justice which when they fall from they are said to be blotted out 3. So before them both Augustine We must not so take it brethren Quod quenquam Deus scribat in librâ— vitae deleat illum That God writeth any in the booke of life and blotteth him out for if a mortall man said that I have written I have written shall we thinke that God writeth and blotteth out Praescius est Deus praedestinavit omnes ante constitutionem mundi regnaturos cum filio God foreseeth all things and he did predestinate all before the making of the world that should reigne with his sonne c. Therefore this is said Secundum spem ipsorum qui ibi se scriptos putabant That some are written which are said to be blotted out in their owne opinion because they thought they were there written so that where it is said let them be blotted out of the booke of life the meaning is ut ipsos constet non illos ibi esse that it may appeare unto them that they are not there To this purpose Augustine as he is alleaged both by Simlerus and Borrhaius 4. Tostatus followeth the same distinction that some are written in the booke of life secundum firmam praedestinationem according to Gods sure predestination some only secundum praesentem justitiam in respect of their present justice these may bee blotted out and not the other but he addeth further that so likewise in the booke of Gods prescience wherein onely they are written whose end is damnation some are written there secundum firmam Dei praescientiam according to Gods firme prescience others secundum praesentem injustitiam according to their present injustice These may be blotted out and not the other And this writing of them in one booke according to their present justice in the other according to their present injustice he calleth the writing foris without the booke the other writing according to Gods predestination and prescience he saith is intus within the booke Then out of these positions he inferreth certaine conclusions 1. That it is possible for one to be written in both these bookes the booke of life and the booke of death together in the one according to Gods predestination or prescience in the other according to their present justice or injustice As he which is predestinate unto life may according to his present state of injustice be written in the booke of death foris without as Paul while he was yet a persecutor and one may be in Gods prescience written in the booke of death and yet according to his present state of grace he may be written in the booke of life as Iudas while yet he continued in Christs obedience and preached the Gospell 2. Yet it is possible for one to be written twice in the same booke both in regard of Gods prescience and his owne state and condition as Moses was thus written in the booke of life and Iudas when he betrayed Christ in the booke of death 3. They which are written in the booke of life according to predestination may be blotted out thence according to their present state and condition as David when he sinned and so in the other booke likewise as Saul while he was yet a vertuous King he was written in the booke of rejection in Gods prescience but blotted out in regard of his present justice 4. But he that is written in the booke of life according unto predestination cannot be written in the booke of death according to Gods prescience and so on the other side because one and the same cannot be foreseene of God both to salvation and condemnation 5. And they which are written according to their present justice in the booke of life cannot at the same time be written in the booke of death according to their present injustice because one cannot at the same time be counted righteous and wicked before God Tostat. qu. 43. But these exceptions may worthily be taken unto Tostatus conclusions 1. Because he maketh a booke of death and speaketh of putting in and blotting out of that booke whereas the Scripture acknowledgeth only a booke of life not any of death for not to be written in the booke of life though they bee not written in any other blacke booke is sufficient unto everlasting perdition 2. He calleth the booke of death the booke of Gods prescience only as though God were not a Judge also in condemning the vessels of wrath into hell and ordaining them justly thereunto as he is in the electing the vessels of honour to salvation 3. It is an errour that God writeth any in either of those bookes on the backside in respect of their present state or condition of justice or injustice for Gods writing there is unchangeable they are there said to be written in regard of their present state secundum spem ipsorum in their owne hope as Augustine or secundum opinionem hominâ—m according to the opinion of men that thinke them to be there written as Thomas before
hard hearted and incorrigible as is evident in the example of Pharaoh 3. God also teacheth men by his example to be patient and long suffering one toward another 4. This patience of God though some abuse it yet other profit by it and their hard hearts are mollified as though Pharaoh by Gods sparing of him became more obstinate yet Nebuchadnezzar at the length by the Lords lenity and goodnesse and fatherly correction was brought to know himselfe and to confesse the true God 5. And though the evill and wicked should reape no profit by the Lords wonderfull patience yet the elect and such as are ordained to salvation are thereby called and brought unto grace as S. Paul sheweth of himselfe For this cause was I received to mercy that Iesus Christ should first shew on me all long suffering unto the ensample of them which in time to come should beleeve on him 1. Tim. 1.16 QUEST XX. How God is said to harden by the subtraction of his grace BEside there is another way whereby the ancient fathers understood God to be said to harden mens heart namely by the subtraction and withdrawing of his grace as Chrysostome God is said to give over unto a reprobate sense to harden to blind and such like Non quòd hac a Deo fiunt quippe cùm à propria hominis malitia proveniant sed quia Deo justè homines deserente hac illis contingunt Not because these things are done by God which proceed of mans malice but because while God doth justly forsake men these things doe happen unto them So also Augustine ludurare dicitur Deus quem mollire noluerit God is said to harden whom he will not nullifie excacare dicitur quem illuminare nolverit And he is said to blind him whom he will not iluminate Gregorie also upon these words of the Lord to Moses I will harden Pharaohs heart thus writeth Obdurare Deus per posâ—â—iam dicitur quando cor reprobum per gratiam non 〈◊〉 God is said by his justice to harden the heart when he doth not by his grace mollifie a reprobate heart So Thomas Aquinas Excacatio obduratio duo important c. The blinding and hardning of the heart implieth two things one is the internall act of the minde adhering unto evill and being adverse from God and so God is not the cause of the hardnesse of the heart The other is the subtraction of grace whereby it commeth to passe that the â—ind is not illuminate to see God c. and in this respect God is the cause of induration This exposition also is true but it expresseth not all that seemeth to be contained in this phrase that God is said to harden Pharaohs heart QUEST XXI How God is said occasionaliter by ministring the occasion which the wicked abuseth to harden the heart THere is then a sixt way of interpreting these words God is said to harden mans heart occasionaliter by way of occasion when the wicked take occasion by such things as fall out and are done by Gods providence to be more hardned and confirmed in their sinne 1. For as all things as prosperity adversity life death fulnesse want and whatsoever else doe worke together unto good to those that feare God as the Apostle saith Rom. 8. So on the contrary all things fall out for the worst unto the wicked and impenitent so the wonders which God wrought in Egypt served to confirme the Hebrewes in their faith but Pharaoh through his owne malice was thereby hardned 2. The things which the Lord doth whereby the wicked take occasion to be hardned are of three sorts either inwardly in the mind as by stirring their affections as of anger feare hope desire which they by their corruption turne unto evill or else such things as are done about them as admonitions corrections mercies benefits which they also ungratiously abuse or they are things externall or without them as the objects of pleasure honour and such like whereby their hard heart is puffed up and swelleth And all these things being good of themselves they through the hardnesse of their heart pervert unto their destruction as S. Peter speaketh of some which through ignorance and unbeleefe doe pervert the Scriptures 2. Pet. 3.16 And S. Paul sheweth that sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and wrought in him all manner of concupiscence Rom. 7.8.3 Thus Pharaoh was hardned by occasion of Gods workes the plagues and wonders which were shewed in Egypt by the wonders because he saw his Magitians could doe the like by the plagues because they touched not him but happened without they came not all at once but with some respite betweene and because he saw that they continued not long but were soone removed 4. To this purpose Augustine Vt tale cor haberet Pharaoh quòd patientia Dâ—o non mâ—veraâ—ur ad pietatem propriâ— sunt vitii quòd vero facta sunt ea quibus cor suo â—itio jam malâ—gnum divinis jussionibus resisteret c. dispensationis fuit divina In that Pharaoh had such an heart which could not be moved by the patience of God unto piety it was his owne fault but that such things were done whereby his heart being evill of it selfe did resist the commandement of God it was of the divine dispensation quaest 18. iâ— Exod. This exposition also of Augustine may bee received but yet there is somewhat further to be considered in Gods concurring in the hardning of Pharaohs heart QUEST XXII God 〈◊〉 sâ—â—d to harden the heart as the event is taken for the cause THere is further a seventh exposition for in the Scripture that is often taken for the cause of a thing which is but the event of it a Chrysostome noteth upon these words Ioh. 17. None of them perished but the child of perdition that the Scriptures might be fulfilled here the Scripture Quae eventus sunâ— pro causa ponit putteth that for the cause which was the event for Iudas did not perish to that end that the Scripture should be fulfilled but it so fell out that the Scripture in Iudas perishing was fulfilled Damascen giveth the like instance in the 51. Psalme Against thee only have I sinned and done evill in thy sight that thou maist be justified in thy sayings and cleere when thou art judged But David did not sinne to that end that God might be justified God had no need of his sinne to set forth his glory So it fell out that God spared David and by his mercy overcame his sinne yet hee sinned not to that end like as when a man is at his worke and one commeth and so he breaketh off he should say my friend came to day to hinder my worke whereas his friend had no such end in his comming So Iacob said to his sonnes Wherefore dealt yee so evill with me as to tell the man whether yee had yet a brother or no Gen. 43.6 Iacobs sonnes in so telling intended no evill or
foreseeth all things did set unto Abraham this terme of 400. yeeres â—ee no doubt most faithfully kept his promise and as he had decreed so after 400. yeeres expired he delivered his seede from their oppressors 3. Moses act in killing the Egyptian was an act of faith not of presumption as both S. Stephen witnesseth Acts 7.25 Hee supposed 〈◊〉 brethren would have understood that God by his hand should give them deliverance as also the Apostle to the Heb. 11.25 By faith Moses when hee was come to age refused to be called the sonne of Pharaohs daughter and chose rather to suffer adversity with the people of God and againe vers 27. By faith he forsooke Egypt c. If Moses then of faith shewed himselfe to be the deliverer of his people as when he killed the Egyptian and cares not for the favour and honour of Pharaohs court then was it not a presumptuous act for the which he should be punished 4. And how standeth it with Gods justice to punish all the people of Israel with the captivity of 30. yeeres longer for the sinne and presumption of one man if Moses had offended and trespassed therein 5. Neither is that observation of forty perpetuall neither David for his sinne nor Peter for his deniall of Christ nor the incestuous young man among the Corinthians were injoyned any such time of penance and Nebuchadnezzars time of repentance farre exceeded this proportion which continued seven yeeres Dan. 4.20 for true repentance is not measured by the number of dayes but by the weight of the contrition and sorrow of heart neither is it found in Scripture that any one man had 40. dayes penance imposed upon him There was another reason of the 40. yeeres wandring of Israel in the desert for according to the time wherein the spies searched the land which was 40. dayes they have a yeere set for a day for the punishment of the sinne of the spies in raising a slander upon that good land all but Caleb and Iosuah and of the people in giving no credit unto them see Numb 14.34 QUEST LXV The time of the Hebrewes departure out of Egypt compared with the Chronology of the Heathen NOw in the last place it shall bee declared how this time of the departing of Israel agreeth with the â—orren computations according to the Chronology of the Heathen 1. They therefore observe five notable periods of times from whence they use to make supputation of their yeeres from the monarchy of Ninus and Semiramis in Abrahams time from the floud of Ogyges and from Inachus and Phâ—râ—neus about the time of the Patriarke Iacob from the battell of Troy which fell out in Sampsons dayes or under Helâ— the high Priest from the beginning of the Olympiades which began in the 8. yeere of the reigne of Ahaz from the building of Rome in the 1. yeere of the seventh Olympiade which concurreth with the 16. yeere of the reigne of Hesekiah 2. According then to these divers kindes of computations there are also divers opinions concerning the time of Israels departure out of Egypt Apion the Gramarian a professed adversary to the Jewes against whom Iosephus wrote two bookes will have Moses to bring the Israelites out of Egypt in the time of the seventh Olympiade when the City Carthage was built by the Tyrians in Africa thus Iosephus reporteth the opinion of Apion in his 2. booke But this to bee apparantly false Iosephus sheweth proving that the Temple of Salomon was built 143. yeeres before Carthage and the Israelites came out of Egypt 480. yeeres before that 1. King 6.1 so that their leaving of Egypt was above 600. yeeres before the building of Carthage 3. As Apion commeth farre short in his computation so Porphyrius goeth as much beyond who in the fourth booke of those which hee wrote against the Christians will have Moses to be before the times of Semiramis which is a grosse error for it is without all question that Abraham was borne under the monarchy of Ninus and from Abrahams birth untill the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt are 505. yeeres whereof an 100. are counted from Abrahams birth to Isaacs and 405. from thence unto Israels redemption as hath beene shewed 4. Lactantius lib. 4. cap. 5. thinketh that Moses was 900. yeeres before the battell of Troy whereas it will be found that he was only 356. yeeres or thereabout elder than those times 5. Manethon an ancient Writer of the Egyptian affaires maketh Moses more ancient by 393. yeeres than when Danaus went to Argos that is about a thousand yeeres before the battell of Troy But that cannot bee seeing the Trojan warre is held to have beene in the time of Sampson or Helâ— not above 356. yeeres after the returne of the Hebrewes out of Egypt 6. Some Christian Writers thinke that the Hebrewes were delivered out of the Egyptian Captivity in the time of Ogyges floud as Iustinus Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus 1. lib. Stromatum Iulian Africanus But that is not like for the same Iulian African by the testimony of divers Heathen Writers sheweth that Ogyges floud was 1020. yeeres before the beginning of the Olympiades But from the departure of Israel out of Egypt untill the Olympiades began which was in the 8. yeere of the reigne of Ahaz are counted but 760. yeere or thereabout so that Moses should bee above two hundred and fifty yeeres after Ogyges floud 7. This is then the right computation compared with the Chronology of the Heathen that the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt was 356. yeere before the Trojan battell and 764. yeeres before the Olympiades 788. yeeres before the building of Rome 910. yeeres before the Captivity of Babylon 980. yeeres before the reigne of Cyrus 1200. yeeres before Alexander the Great 1496. yeeres before Herod under whose reigne Christ was borne And according to the sacred Chronologie this redemption of Israel from the Egyptian bondage was 2453. yeeres after the creation of the world 797. yeeres after Noahs floud 505. yeeres after the death of the Patriarke Ioseph 480. yeeres before the building of Salomons Temple and 1536. yeeres before the birth of our blessed Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus Ex Perer. 4. Places of doctrine 1. Doct. How the Lords holy dayes should be kept Vers. 16. IN the first day shall be an holy convocation The word is mikra which also signifieth reading which sheweth how holy and festivall dayes ought to be spent in assembling the people together and in reading and preaching unto them the mercies and benefits of God Pellican And this was the use among the people of God as S. Peter saith Moses hath of old time them that preach him in every City seeing he is read in the Synagogues every Sabbath 2. Doct. A particular application of our redemption by Christs death needfull Vers. 21. CHuse out of every of your households a lambe God would as it were by a speciall application have every private house and family admonished of this singular
cognitione carent quae cognitio non alia re quà m fide in Christum constet Which want the knowledge of Christ which knowledge consisteth in nothing else than in faith in Christ. Marbach Commentar in hunc locum Against this opinion that faith in Christ is not commanded in the Morall law the reasons follow afterward but first the question must further be explaned 1. First then we are to distinguish of faith which is of foure kindes or sorts 1. There is fides initialis or fundamentalis the faith of beginnings or the fundamentall faith whereof the Apostle speaketh Hebr. 11.6 That he which commeth unto God must beleeve that God is c. And this kinde of faith toward God the Apostle referreth to the doctrine of beginnings Heb. 6. 1. This faith apprehendeth onely the being and essence of God to know him to be the only Lord. 2. There is another faith called fides miraculorum the faith of miracles touched by the Apostle 1. Cor 13.2 If I had all faith so that I could remove mountaines 3. There is fides historica an historicall faith which beleeveth all things to bee true that are written in the Scriptures in which sense S Iames saith The Devils beleeve and tremble they beleeve there is a God and that all is true which the Scripture speaketh of God of his justice power punishing of sinners rewarding of the righteous 4. There is beside these a justifying faith whereof S. Paul maketh mention In that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Sonne of God who hath loved me and given himselfe for me Galath 2.20 This faith is the life of the soule whereby hee which beleeveth is able in particular to apply unto himselfe the merits of Christs death Now this is the difference betweene these foure kindes of faith the first apprehendeth the essence and being of God the second the faith of miracles his power the third which is the historicall faith his truth the fourth namely the justifying faith his mercie The three first to beleeve God to be to beleeve him to bee omnipotent to beleeve him to be just and true are included in the first precept Thou shalt have no other Gods c. but not the last wherein is the errour of the Romanists that make all these kindes of faith the same in substance differing only in property which if it were true then it were possible for them that have the one faith to have the other and so Devils also which in some sort doe beleeve should also be capable of justifying faith But this matter that all these kindes of faith are not the same in substance nor of like nature with the justifying faith is shewed elsewhere whither I referre the Reader 2. Further we are to distinguish of the law for it is taken sometime more largely either for all the Scriptures of the old Testament as Luk 16.17 It is more easie that heaven and earth should passe away than that one title of the law should fall So Ioh. 15.25 It is written in their law they have hated mee without a cause which testimony is found in the Psalmes Psal. 35.19 or else the law is taken for all the bookes of Moses and so the Law and Prophets are named together Matth. 7.12 This is the Law and the Prophets But the law is sometime taken more strictly for the Morall law whereof the Apostle speaketh Rom. 7. I knew not sinne but by the law and so S. Paul opposeth the law of workes to the law of faith Rom. 3.27 Now as the law is taken generally either for all the old Scriptures written by the Prophets or for the writings of Moses it cannot be denied but that faith in Jesus Christ is in this sense both contained and commanded in the law for of Christ the Lord spake by the mouth of his Prophets Luk. 1.70 And Moses wrote of Christ as our Saviour saith Had yee beleeved Moses yee would have beleeved me for Moses wrote of mee Ioh. 5.45 But as the law is taken strictly for the Morall law the law of workes which containeth only the ten words or Commandements so we deny this justifying faith to bee commanded in the law 3. Indirectly or by way of consequent it will not bee denied but that this faith also is implied in the law because we are bound by the law to beleeve the Scriptures and the whole word of God for this is a part of Gods worship to beleeve his word to be true and so some define faith Est certa persuafio qua assentimur omni verbo Dei nobis tradita It is a certaine perswasion whereby wee give assent to all the word of God Vrsin And so by this precept wee are bound to receive all the promises and doctrines concerning Christ delivered in the old and new Testament But directly as a part and branch and so a worke of the law wee deny justifying faith to be in this precept or any other prescribed or commanded The reasons are these 1. The Morall law and the Gospell differ in the very nature and substance for the one is naturally imprinted in the heart of man the other is revealed and wrought by grace The first the Apostle testifieth where he saith The Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law Rom. 2.14 The other also is witnessed by the same Apostle Rom. 2.24 We are justified freely by his grace The argument then may be framed thus The morall law is graft in the heart of man by nature but faith in Christ is not by nature but by grace above nature for if it were naturall all men should have faith which the Apostle denieth 2. Thessal 3.2 Faith then in Christ belongeth not to the law Therefore it is strange that Bellarmine confessing in another place that pracepta decalogi sunt explicationes juris natura that the precepts of the decalogue are the explications of the law of nature Lib. 2. de Imaginib Sanctor cap. 7. could not inferre hereupon that the precepts of faith and of the Gospell are no explications of the law of nature and therefore have no dependance of the morall law Ambrose useth this very argument Nemo sub lâ—ge fidem constituat lex enim intra mensuram ultra mensuram gratia Let no man place faith in the law for the law is within the measure and compasse of nature but grace is beyond measure Ambros. in 12. Luc. 2. The effects of the law of works and the law of faith are divers for the one worketh feare the other love and peace as the Apostle saith Ye have not received the spirit of bondage to feare againe but yee have received the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba Father Rom. 8.17 Againe the Apostle saith The letter killeth the Spirit giveth life 2 Cor. 2.6 Thus then the argument standeth the same thing cannot bee the instrument of contrary things of life and death peace
of Salomon but now the worship of God is not tied to any certaine place as at Jerusalem where the Temple was Ioh. 4.21 3. Other Sacraments are instituted in place of the old as Baptisme and the Eucharist therefore the old are abrogated 4. The ceremonies did bind the observers to the keeping of the whole law and the rites thereof he which was circumcised was bound to keepe the whole law Galath 5.3 but we are not bound now to the whole law from which bondage Christ hath freed us Ergo. 5. The ceremonies were a wall of partition and distinction betweene the Jewes and Gentiles but now that distinction is taken away all being one in Christ therefore that wall whereby they were parted and distinguished is removed also Simler 2. As touching the politike and judiciall lawes of Moses neither doe they absolutely â—ind now 1. Many of these lawes were peculiar to the policie of that Common-wealth as the lawes concerning their inheritances and possessions which were not to passe from tribe to tribe and they shewed the fashions and manners of that countrie as in building their houses with flat roofes as Deut. 22.8 Of these positive constitutions there is now no use among other nations 2. The condition of all people is not alike some are more stubborne and obstinate some more civill and tractable and therefore some have need of more strict and severe lawes than others one kinde of politicke law then cannot serve for all nations 3. The Gospell which is perpetuall prescribeth not a certaine forme of government to all nations neither overthroweth their severall policies but in generall commandeth obedience to all higher powers Rom. 13.1 Ergo much lesse the law which was to be changed Simler But the judiciall law is not abrogated Quoad substantiam finem universalem â—quitatem In respect of the substance end and universall equitie which is in punishing of vice and maintaining of peace Bucanus See more hereof quest 4. general cap. 1. 3. The Morall law is not now in force quoad justificationem in respect of justification Rom. 3.28 A man is justified by faith without the works of the law but it bindeth quoad obedientiam In respect of obedience we are bound to keepe all the precepts of the law but yet quoad terrorem modum obedientiae in respect of the terror of the law and manner of obedience which was to be obedient and subject unto it for feare of punishment wee are freed now from it and therefore the Apostle saith The law is not given to a righteous man 1 Tim. 1.9 because they of love rather than feare do yeeld their obedience and so are a law unto themselves Simler But this is a privilege onely of the regenerate As for carnall and unregenerate men they are still under the curse and terror of the law according to that saying Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them Buâ—â—â— 2. Places of Doctrine 1. Doct. Of the particular contents of this precept THou shalt not covet First the things commanded here are these 1. Originall justice which is an inclination and desire of the minde to performe all duties unto our neighbour Vrsin 2. Diligent care and circumspection even to take heed of the smallest sinnes and to watch over the very thoughts Prov. 3.23 Keepe thy heart with all diligence for thereout commeth life Basting Secondly contrarie unto this precept 1. Is originall corruption which is the generall corruption and depravation of our nature and that evill habit wherein wee are conceived and borne as David saith Behold I was borne in iniquitie and in sinne hath my mother conceived me Psal. 51.5 2. All evill inclinations of the heart whereby it is sollicited to doe any thing against the law of God this evill concupiscent is of two sorts it either hath principium internum the beginning within as is fleshly and carnall desire or externum without by some externall object which are the concupiscence of the eye and pride of life as the Apostle calleth them 1 Ioh. 16. 3. And not onely these kinds of concupiscence but all other phantasies and cogitations of the minde which are contrarie to the law of God are here restrained Basting 2. Doct. Of the severall properties of possessions and goods and the distinction of callings FUrther in that the Lord forbiddeth to covet our neighbours house servant c. wee see the Lord establisheth and confirmeth hereby both the severall rights in possessions lands and other substance which right and propertie the Lord will not have violated so much as in the concupiscence and inward desire As also here it is evident that the difference of callings and distinction of degrees as betweene master and servant standeth with the will of God as our blessed Saviour and his Apostles also every where teach Simler 3. Doct. The difference betweene divine and humane lawes HErein also is set forth an apparent difference betweene the law of God and the lawes of men Lex humana judicat facta dicta divina judicat etiam cogitata Mans law onely judgeth doings and sayings but Gods law judgeth the very thoughts and the reason hereof is because man judgeth onely according to the outward appearance and evidence but the Lord seeth the heart Thomas And the perfection of Divinitie is hereby declared beyond Philosophie which condemneth not the inward lusts and desires of the minde neither holdeth a man for the same whether they bee good or evill to be worthie praise or dispraise But the law of God striketh at the very root of evill actions which is the inward concupiscence and corruption of the heart 4. Doct. Of the concupiscence of the soule and of the flesh IT shall not bee amisse here to insert Chrysostomes distinction of concupiscence As wee have two natures one of the soule the other of the flesh so wee have two wils one of the soule the other of the flesh habemus duas itas duas concupiscentias c. we have also two kinds of anger and two kinds of concupiscence one of the soule the other of the flesh the nature of the flesh cannot bee separated from all these Necesse habet irasci concupiscere c. It cannot chuse but to be angrie to covet because it is sold under sinne but the soule being created according to the justice of God potest non irasci c. cannot bee angrie nor covet therefore when wee are angrie and covet if wee displease ourselves and represse these passions it is manifest that our flesh onely is angrie and coveteth and not the soule Such kinde of passions then here are forbidden wherein the soule consenteth with the flesh To this purpose Chrysost. hom 12. in Matth. 3. Places of controversie 1. Conf. Against the Pelagians that denie concupiscence to be sinne FIrst we are here to deale against the Pelagians who did hold concupiscentiam non esse peccatum that
similitude whereof the Astrologians afterward tooke the fashion of their Astrolabes by the which they understood secret things But this is a superstitious conceit 1. These plates which he imagineth being put within the fold of the breast-plate how should they come to be seene of others to make their Astrologicall instruments by 2. The Astrolabe serveth onely to search out the secrets of nature but by the Vrim and Thummim the Priest gave answer of supernaturall things 3. Neither did the Priest when hee consulted with God looke upon any such figures as he imagineth to have beene in these plates but received answer from God Sic Tostat quaest 12. 5. R. Salomon thinketh that the Vrim and Thummim was nothing else but the name of Iehovah which was written in letters and put within the breast-plate which name some ancient Hebrewes even before Christ did take to signifie the Trinity In this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iehovah the first letter jod they would have taken for the Father he for the Sonne which letter is doubled to signifie his two natures the humane and Divine and vau which is a conjunction copulative signifieth the holy Ghost Vatabl. But betweene these words Vrim and Thummim and the name Iehovah there seemeth to be small affinity 6. Some of the Rabbines as Paulus Fagius reporteth their opinion thinke that this Vrim and Thummim was an exposition of the name Iehovah consisting of certaine letters 42. in number which were put within the pectorall and Hugo de S. Victor thinketh that they were characteres inscripti diversis literis characters written with certaine letters But there is no reason to call so many letters by the name of Vrim and Thummim 7. Some thinke that these very words Vrim and Thummim were graven in the pectorall of which opinion seemeth Philo to be calling the Vrim and Thummim duas virtutes depictas two vertues set forth and pictured in the rationall or pectorall But the phrase of putting in the Vrim and Thummim sheweth that they were not wrought into the breast-plate but put into it after it was made 8. Suidas thinketh it was a bright Diamond in the pectorall which shined extraordinarily when the Lord gave an acceptable answer some thinke they were two precious stones set into the pectorall beside the other twelve as Calvin thinketh Duas fuisse insignes notas That they were two notable markes in the pectorall to the which these names agreed But the order of the precious stones being set in foure rankes would not leave any place for any other to be set in Simler And it is not like that this Diamond was one of the twelve for why should one of these stones be called Vrim and Thummim rather than another 9. Oleaster Lippoman Osiander thinke that the Vrim and Thummim were the very stones themselves called Vrim of their brightnesse and they were called Thummim of their perfection or because they filled up the places where they were set in But if they were nothing else but the very precious stones themselves which were described before to be set in the breast-plate what needed it be added againe Thou shalt put in the breast-plate of judgement Vrim and Thummim Ribera 10. And the same Ribera though he mislike the former opinion of Oleaster yet he doth not much differ from it adding only this that the Vrim and Thummim were those twelve precious stones not simply Sed quatenus per eos Deus solebat futura praenunciare respondere in agendis but as God did by them foretell things to come and give answer what was to be done And he urgeth this as a reason because Exod. 39. where it is reported what things the workmen had made according to Moses direction the least thing being not omitted yet no mention is made of the Vrim and Thummim which sheweth that they were the very same with the twelve stones Of the same opinion seemeth Iosephus to be that the Vrim and Thummim were the twelve precious stones which he saith used to shine exceeding bright when the Lord would give good successe to the people in their warre But this reason may be retorted againe that seeing no mention is made of Vrim and Thummim that it was not prepared by the workmen but was rather some sacred monument which Moses received of God as he did the tables of stone To this opinion I before inclined in another place that the Vrim and Thummim were the precious stones themselves so called of their excellent brightnesse and perfection but now upon better reason I am moved to thinke that they were a reall and distinct thing from the precious stones for the workmen set in the stones Exod. 39.10 they filled it with foure rowes of stones but Moses put in the breast-plate after it was made the Vrim and Thummim Levit. 8.8 11. Thomas thinketh that Quaedam scribebantur in rationali c. Some things were written in the pectorall which concerned the verity of justice and doctrine But this was no place for such writing in the pectorall being filled with the stones 12. Some therefore are of this judgement that this Vrim and Thummim Rem fuisse multiplici figura distinctam claram c. was a thing of great variety cleare bright as may appeare by the signification of the words and that they are put in the plurall number Non humano artificio factum sed divinitus Mosi datum Not made by humane workmanship but given unto Moses of God What matter it was of it can be no more conjectured than of what stone the tables were made wherein the Law was written and whereof the Manna was which melted with the Sunne and was hardened at the fire or of what substance the holy fire consisted which came downe from heaven upon Aarons sacrifice This precious monument of Vrim and Thummim was put into the fold of the pectorall which was to that end made double Montan. in apparat To the same purpose also Iunius who thinketh that it was soli Mosi à Deo data given unto Moses only of God and so put into the breast-plate Levit. 8.8 13. Piscator reporteth this to be the opinion of Matthias Martinius that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vrim and Thummim Intra duplicitatem pectoris interposita fuisse were put betweene in the doubling of the breast-plate So also Beda Doctrina veritas in rationali judicii sive literis est impressa seu nominibus Doctrine and verity was imprinted either in letters or in names in the rationall or pectorall of judgement c. likewise Rupertus Doctrina quoque veritas inscribiturilli Doctrine and truth is written therein c. that is the Hebrew words Vrim Thummim which they so interpret doctrine and verity but they rather signifie light or illumination and perfection Procopius inclineth to the same opinion Incertum est an alii hic intelligendi sint lapides vel capienda sit quaedam duorum nominum
alleaged QUEST LXXXII Whether Moses did well in wishing to be raced out of the booke of life and in what sense he so prayeth NOw then seeing the elect which are once written in the booke of life can never be blotted out and Moses was not ignorant thereof how could he pray so directly against the will of God 1. Some thinke that he might so pray to be raced out not as he was there eternally written according to Gods prescience but in respect of his present state of grace as Lippoman saith that when Moses sinned at the waters of strife delevit eum de libro secundum praesentem justitiam God blotted him out of his booke in respect of his present justice but afterward put him in againe c. But it cannot be so here for seeing none are so blotted out but by their sinne for Moses to desire to be so raced out had beene petere peccare mortaliter to crave to sinne mortally and againe God doth not thus race out any in respect of their unrighteousnesse but they race out themselves 2. Some thinke that Moses thus prayed quia turbatus erat because he was troubled and perplexed and did not consider at that instant whether that were impossible which he desired and they thinke he thus spake ex impetu passionis in the heat of his passion Ex Lyrano And Calvin saith not much unlike Mosem tanta vehementia fuisse abreptum ut loquatur quasi ecstaticus That Moses was carried away with such vehemencie that he spake as a man beside himselfe But Lyranus reason confuteth this answer because tranquillitas mentis tranquillity of minde is required in him that commeth unto God 3. Augustine giveth this exposition Ego sum certus quod non delebis me de libro vitae c. I am sure that thou wilt not blot me out of the booke of life and so Lord let me be as sure that thou wilt not destroy this people Ex Lyran. Tostat. But in that to this part of Moses request the Lord answereth negatively that he will not blot out him but whosoever sinneth Moses spake not so in that sense of his owne confidence and assurance for then the Lord would not therein have contradicted him but rather have given consent unto his speech as approving his confidence or else it would seeme to be an impertinent answer neither of which is to be admitted 4. Rupertus whom Ferus followeth thinketh that Moses speaketh affirmatively in this sense that if so the Lord in mercie would not pardon the peoples sinne but deale rigorously consequitur ut me de libro tuo deleas it must also follow that I be blotted out of the booke of life But this should have shewed Moses to be wavering and doubtfull of his owne salvation whereof the faithfull have such confidence and assurance that though thousands should perish they would make no question of their owne salvation 5. Lyranus giveth this interpretation that Moses thus spake Secundum dispositionem partis inferioris anima According to the disposition of the inferiour part of his minde that is in his affection and desire though it were not so in voluntate rationem superiorem sequente in his will following his judgement the superiour part of his soule as Christ in his desire wished the cup to passe from him yet simpliciter vellet pati simply would suffer and so Moses here simpliciter voluit non deleri simply would not bee blotted out But this example is nothing like 1. For first divers of the ancient Writers prove out of this place the two wils of Christ as Athanasius Humana voluntas propter infirmitatem carnis refugiebat passionem His humane will by reason of the infirmity of the flesh refused to suffer sed divina prompta erat but his divine will was ready c. So also Hierom then in this sense this example fitteth not Moses at all who had not two such wils as Christ had 2. But allowing Christ here to pray as man which is rather to be received for as God he prayeth not but is prayed unto We may further admit that distinction of Peter Lombard that there is Duplex affectus mentis sensus A double affection of the minde and of the sense Christ in the affection of his minde and judgement was willing to suffer but sensualitatis affectu in the affection of his sense he desired the cup to passe but this was a naturall desire in Christ to escape death now in Moses to wish not temporall but eternall death was a supernaturall desire and therefore proceeded not from the sensuall part of his minde but rather out of his most inward feeling and meditation 6. Tostatus thinketh it to be a parabolicall speech Ad signandum intentionem defideriâ— To shew the intention of his desire like unto that of Rachels unto Iacob Give me children or else I dye Gen. 30. and yet Rachel would rather have chosen to live and have no children than to have children and then presently die like as if a man should say Doe this thing for mee or else kill me and yet he had rather that thing should be left undone than himselfe to be killed and after the same manner doth Moses pray here But this were for Moses to speake one thing and meane another And as Hierom well compareth them together Moses spake here with the like affection that S. Paul prayeth to be an anathema and accursed for his brethren sake which the holy Apostle spake with his whole desire calling Christ to witnesse that he lied not As S. Paul is not to be taken there to speake parabolically or figuratively but even from his heart so doth Moses here 7. Borrhaius saith that Moses thus prayeth with a condition Si non vis if thou wilt not pardon Israel then race me out I am vero Moses non velle Deum Israelem in totum perdere fide agnovit Now Moses was sure by faith that God would not wholly destroy Israel But Borrhaius maketh that the conclusion here God will not destroy Israel therefore I cannot bee blotted out c. which Moses useth as an argument to perswade the other Race mee out of thou wilt not c. And beside Moses here prayeth not that the Lord would not wholly destroy the people for that God had granted him before vers 14. but that the Lord would forgive them their sinne and be fully reconciled 8. Iunius understandeth this desire of Moses also to be conditionall but in another sense as this condition he would have supplied Si Deo placebit si videbitur If it shall please God if it shall seeme good unto him which condition the Apostle would have generally understood Iam. 4. So also Marbachius would have the like condition expressed Si possibile fit If it be possible as our Saviour putteth in that condition If it be possible But these instances are not alike in temporall things because Gods will is not revealed unto us we
a brother for the word is used first in this place where it so signifieth from hence then the originall sense of the word must be taken 3. The words of the law are If brethren dwell together now naturall brethren and such as are properly so called are more like to dwell together than kinsmen removed who in a large sense are so called brethren 4. This law is so interpreted in the Gospell where it appeareth by the Sadduces question of seven brethren that successively tooke the one the others wife Matth. 22. that it was so practised 5. It is the opinion of Philo and the Hebrewes as we heard before who are best acquainted with their owne lawes that naturall brethren used so to doe 4. Now the objections on the contrary part are easily answered 1. It is objected that Levit. 18.16 the brother is forbidden to marry his brothers wife Answ. This is a particular exception from that generall law that unlesse in this case onely to raise seed to the brother it was utterly unlawfull to take the brothers widow which was not to uncover her shame but rather to take away her shame in that shee remained childlesse by his brother and it was honourable to the dead in reviving his memory So wee see in other cases that the Lord made some particular exception from his generall lawes As the making of the Cherubims over the Arke was an instance against the second commandement the Israelites robbing of the Egyptians against the eighth commandement Phinehes killing of the adulterer and adulteresse against the sixth commandement 2. Ob. The practice of this law as appeareth Ruth 4. where Boaz not a brother but a kinsman taketh the wife of the dead sheweth the meaning thereof Answ. We deny not but where there was no brother nearer there the next kinsman further off did the duty of the brother and so was it practised upon Ruth 3. Ob. Iohn Baptist simply reproveth Herod because he tooke his brothers wife It is not lawfull for thee saith Iohn to have thy brothers wife Mark 6.18 Answ. It is certaine that Herods brother had issue by his wife Herodias whose daughter danced before Herod and therefore in this case it was not lawfull so that Herod tooke not Herodias for any such purpose to raise seed to his brother but of an immoderate lust 4. Ob. Why then should it not be lawfull still in this case to marry the brothers wife dying without issue Answ. This law of Moses was partly ceremoniall and typicall in preserving the right of the first-borne whereby was prefigured the spirituall birth-right in the Messiah which never should have end partly politicall in maintaining the distinction of families in their tribes whereof the ceremonie is now abolished which onely concerned that people Iun. in Deut. 25. vers 5. QUEST VIII Whether Thamar or Iudahs sinne was greater COncerning this act of incontinencie which Iudah committed with Thamar 1. We refuse the opinion of Rab. Simeon who altogether exempteth Thamar from any fault because she onely desired issue for the hope of the Messiah to be borne of Iudah for this mystery was not as yet revealed Perer. 2. It is certaine that Iudahs sinne was greater than Thamars both in that he brake promise with her concerning Selah as also in that he companied with her not for any issue but carnall lust though he were afterward preferred before his brethren this no more excuseth his fault than if Davids adultery joyned with murther should bee defended because hee was preferred before his brethren of whose seed the Messiah should come 3. Thamars sinne was lesse than Iudahs yet a sinne as Augustine noteth Non eam justificatam sed magis quam se justificatam dicens Iudah saith She was not righteous but more righteous than he lib. 22. cont Faust. cap. 62. Yet her fault is extenuated by these circumstances as Ambrose noteth Non alienum praeripuit thorum She did not usurpe upon anothers bed she stayed till Iudah was a widower she did it not of an inordinate lust Sed successionis gratia concupivit She onely desired to have issue Et ex ea familia quam delegerat And by that family which she had chosen and further after she knew her selfe to be conceived with childe she put on her widowes garments againe and so continued 4. Yet Thamars sin in some respect was greater than Iudahs because she wittingly committed incest with her father in law but Iudah ignorantly Luther Notwithstanding all circumstances considered Iudahs fault was the greater and so he doth justifie her in respect of himselfe 5. But whereas Ambrose further noteth that shee stayed till Selah to whom she was espoused was dead therein is an errour for vers 14. it is given as a reason why Thamar attempted this thing because Selah was now growne and of age and she yet not given unto him he was then at this time alive Beside Selah is numbred among those sons of Iudah that went downe with Iacob into Egypt and onely Er and Onan of Iacobs sonnes are said to have died in the land of Canaan Gen. 46.12 ex Perer. QUEST IX How it came to passe that Iudah discerned not Thamar by her voice Vers. 15. HE judged her to be an whore for she had covered her face c. 1. Not as some reade she had coloured or painted her face whom Aben Ezra doth not without cause reprove 2. Neither is this a reason why Iudah did thinke she was an harlot because she was vailed as Iunius Calvin for harlots use not to be so modest but it is given as a reason why Iudah did not know her Mercer 3. And whereas it may seeme strange that Iudah did not know her by her voice the reason is that being wholly given over to lust and intending no other thing he greatly regarded not the sight of his eyes or hearing of his eares Luther As also it was a just judgement of God upon him to strike him with such a stupidity as not to discerne her Mercer Geneven QUEST X. Whether Iudâ—h were a Iudge Vers. 24. BRing her forth and let her be burnt c. 1. Iudah giveth not sentence against Thamar either as being appointed a Prince and Judge among the Canaanites as Tostatus Cajetanus for it is not like they would suffer a stranger to be a Judge and ruler among them as the Sodomites answer Lot Gen. 19.9 neither as chiefe in the familie had he power of life and death over those of his charge as some thinke for neither doe we reade that any father of families did execute any such justice in their families and Iacob was the chiefe father of these families and therefore it is most like that Iudah giveth advice that Thamar should be brought forth to the place of justice and proceeded against according to the custome and law of that Country Mercer Iun. 2. But whereas she is adjudged to the fire this was not because she was Melchisedecks daughter the Lords high
Priest as the Hebrewes imagine for he died ten yeares before Iacob was borne who was now above 100. yeare old and therefore Melchisedeck could not have a daughter so young to beare children neither was this punishment arbitrary in Iudah and inflicted without law according to his pleasure Burgens for Iudah had no such authority there nor yet as Lyranus and Tostatus was she worthy of the fire because she had committed not simple fornication but adultery because she was by law obliged to the third brother and so in a manner espoused for it was not adultery for the widow of the brother to marrie with some other than the surviving brother else Naomi would never have advised her daughters in law to get them other husbands in their owne Countrey Ruth 1.9 But I rather thinke that Thamars adultery was in this that she had played the whore whereas Iudah had betrothed and espoused her to Selah and that Iudah who never was minded to give Selah to Thamar fearing lest he might die also as is evident vers 11. was very forward to take this occasion to be rid of Thamar that Selah might not marrie her 3. But herein appeareth Iudahs too much rigour and injustice that before the matter was examined gave sentence and was partiall the truth being knowne in his owne cause and further it was a savage part to put to death a woman great with childe which is contrary both to divine and humane lawes for it is written Deut. 24.16 The fathers shall not bee put to death for the children nor the children for the fathers but if Thamar had now died the infant had died with her The Romans had a law that the execution of a woman with childe should be deferred till she had brought forth the same also was practised among the Athenians Aeltan lib. 5. And therefore Claudius the Emperour is noted for his cruelty that spared not to put to death women with childe Perer. ex Dion lib. 57. QUEST XI Wherefore the Midwife useth a red threed and what colour it was of Vers. 28. THe midwife bound a red threed c. 1. It is so rather to be read than with Oleaster a twine or double threed the word sani here used commeth indeed of sanah that signifieth to double which is rather to be referred to the double die and colour than the double matter Iun. Tostatus also is much deceived here that taketh it not for a red but a blacke colour twice died ex Perer. 3. The Midwife tied this red threed as a marke of the first-borne because he first put forth his hand and the purple colour very well agreeth to the birth-right or eldership Muscul. QUEST XII Whence Pharez was so called and whereof he is a type Vers. 29. HOw hast thou broken thy breach upon thee 1. Hierome is deceived that of this word pharatz that signifieth to breake or divide thinketh the Pharises to have taken denomination whereas they had their name rather of Pharas which signifieth to disperse or separate because they were separate from other in profession of life and their apparell Mercer 2. This story hath bin diversly allegorized by the fathers some by Pharez understand the beleeving Gentiles by Zarah the Israelites and by the red threed their bloudy circumcision sacrifices sic Iren. Cyril Some contrariwise will have Phares to signifie the Jewes Zarah the beleeving Gentiles Chrysost. 3. But this Phares is more fitly a type and figure of Christ who hath broken downe the partition wall and hath broken the power of hell and death Mercer And by this strange and extraordinary birth the Lord would have Iudah and Thamar admonished of the sin which they had committed and to be humbled thereby though he in his mercie had forgiven it Calvin 4. Places of Doctrine 1. Doct. The difference betweene the apparelling of widowes and wives Vers. 14. SHe put her widowes garment off c. It seemeth that it was the use in those dayes for widowes to be knowne from wives by their mourning and grave apparell in which case more is permitted to women that are married whom the Apostle alloweth to adorne themselves with comely and sober apparell without pride or excesse 1 Timoth. 2.9 to please and content their husbands but widowes having no husbands to whose liking they should apparell themselves ought not to decke themselves to please other mens eyes Luther 2. Doct. Friendship ought alwayes to be joyned with pietie Vers. 20. IVdah sent a kid by the hand of his friend This Hâ—rah Iudahs friend did performe an evill office in being as it were a broker for Iudah who should neither have requested any dishonest or uncomely thing of his friend nor the other yeelded unto it love truth and piety ought not to be separated as Saint Iohn saith Whom I love in the truth Epist. 3.1 Muscul. 3. Doct. Adultery in former times punished by death Vers. 24. LEt her bee burnt We see that even among the Canaanites adultery was judged worthy of death for Iudah inventeth no new kinde of punishment but speaketh according to the law and custome of that Countrey So the Lord himselfe said to Abimelech that had taken Sarai unto him Behold thou art but a dead man for this c. Gen. 20.3 Now although this law as peculiar to that Countrey bindeth not now neither in respect of the kinde of death for by Moses law onely the Priests daughter if she played the whore was burned Levit. 21.9 the rest were stoned nor yet in the inequality of the law for the women offending were burned the men escaped as appeareth in Iudah Calvin whereas both adulterers and adulteresses are alike guilty and though then there was greater cause of keeping their seed uncorrupt for preserving of their lives and the distinction of families in which respect it may be thought somewhat of the former rigour and severity may be abated yet this example condemneth the security and connivence of magistrates in these dayes in the punishing of this sinne when as faults of lesse nature are more severely censured than adultery And whereas the president of our Saviour is urged by some for the mitigation of the punishment of adultery because he would not condemne the woman taken in adulterie it doth not serve their turne for this mercie Christ shewed not to cleare or exempt the adulteresse leaving her to the magistrate but partly to shew that he came not to be a judge in such causes as neither in other like businesses as dividing of the inheritance Luk. 12.14 partly by this example he would teach what is to be required in the person of an accuser not to bee guilty of that crime whereof he accuseth others 5. Places of Confutation 1. Confut. That it is not lawfull upon any occasion to marrie the brothers wife Vers. 8. GOe into thy brothers wife Because in this place as also Deut. 25.5 it is permitted to naturall brethren to marry the wives of their brother deceased Bellarmine