of gold and the Babylonish garment which God had consecrate to his treasurie Iosh. 6.19 and for the same offence hee was stoned to death 2. When the Church goods are imployed to another end than for the which they were first given to the Church which was to maintaine the ministerie of the word of God and Sacraments to relieve the poore to maintaine the edifices of the Church Let such therefore looke unto it as live of the tithes and revenues of the Church being lay men not called to the office of teaching instructing and spirituall feeding 3. They abuse the Church goods which either give themselues to idlenesse living of the tithes and offerings but feed not the people such are idle carelesse and negligent pastors or those which mispend them in riot and excesse as in keeping haukes hounds in dice cards and such like as doe the Romane Cardinals and Prelates all these are guiltie of Church robbing and sacrilege Simler QUEST V. Whether it be lawfull to convert things consecrated to Idolatrie to other uses sacred or prophane HEre it will bee questioned what is to be thought of the converting and turning of such things to religious uses which were bequeathed to superstition whether therein any sacrilege may be committed or not The answer is this 1. That it is lawful from superstitious and no true religious uses to convert such bequests to the true service of God and therein no violence is offered at all to the will of the dead for their generall intendment is observed the applying of them to sacred uses 〈◊〉 the particular use bee not kept which they led with the error of the time intended Simler So the Lord commanded that the silver and gold and brasse in Iericho should be consecrate to the Lords â—urie Iosh. 6.19 which had beene before abused to idolatrie 2. Where excessive and superfluous legacies have beene given to such uses it is lawfull for the Civill Magistrate reserving a sufficient maintenance for the service of God to dispose of the overplus of such gifts for other publike uses as to support the necessitie of the Crowne and State to maintaine maimed souldiers and such like and to applie them to other lawfull and profitable Civill uses as Iehu converted the house of Baal from a superstitious and idolatrous to a civill and publike use 2 King 10.27 Iosias also defiled and polluted the high places 2 King 23.8 that is cleansed them of those superstitions there practised and turned them to prophane and common uses Hereunto is agreeable that Imperiall law Cod. lib. 1. tit 14. leg 5. Omnia loca quae sacris veterum error deputavit nostrae rei jubemus sacrari c. Honor. Theodos. All those places which have beene in the error of former time appointed to sacred uses wee bid to bee joyned to our treasurie c. Yet so as it was provided by another law that sufficient should bee reserved for the use and exercise of Religion as Cod. lib. 1. tit â— leg 9. Anastasius the Emperour decreed that the possessions of Heretikes should be confiscate to the Prince yet so as that the Oratories and places of prayer should still bee maintained 3. But it will bee objected that great miracles have beene shewed in such places and they extraordinarily punished from heaven that invaded them and offered violence unto them Hereunto wee answer 1. That such things also fell oâ—t even among the Heathen they which violated their Idoll Temples were strangely punished as Brennâ—â— when hee invaded the Temple at Delphos the reason hereof was because they did it not of any hatred to superstition and Idolatrie and zeale to the true worship of God but of a prophane and irreligious minde and so the Lord punished their prophanenesse and they which attempted such things might bee tyrants and otherwise wicked persons and therefore the Lord did take occasion thereby to punish their crueltie and tyrannie 2. The Apostle sheweth that Antichrist shall come with lying signes and wonders by the working of Satan 2 Thess. 2. and therefore such strange things might bee wrought in such places by Satan for the further advancing of superstition Simler QUEST VI. Of the sacriledge of spirituall things BUt mention was made before of spirituall sacriledge which is when Ecclesia verbi Dei prâ—dicatiâ— sacramentorum administratio aufertur the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments is taken away from the Church Simler 1. In these two things consisteth this spirituall theft and sacriledge Contraria veritati dogmata praedicant They doe preach doctrines contrarie to the truth and quotidie de Ecclesiae gregibus rapere festinant they doe daily snatch and take with greedinesse from the flockes of the Church Hierom. in Abdiam cap. 1. 2. Hierome also to this purpose alleageth these two places of Sâ—â—ipture Ierem. 23.30 I will come against the Prophets saith the Lord that steale my word every one from his neighbour and Ioh. 10.8 All that ever came before mee are theeves and robbers they were the false Prophets that beguiled and deceived the people Hierom. in epist. ad Ephes. cap. 4. QUEST VII Of Simonie VNto Sacriledge Simonie is cosen germane which also is committed about holy things when they are abused by buying and selling unto privaâ—â— gaine And this Simonie is of two sorts 1. Either direct and immediate Simonie when things meerely spirituall are bought or sold Gehezs sold spirituall things for money exacting a reward of Naaman for the gift of healing and for that his sinne he was punished with Leprosie both hee and his posteritie 2 King 5. Simon Magus would have bought spirituall things Act. 8. Basting Of this kinde are they which sell their prayers or the Sacraments of the Church for money as the Pharisies that under colour of long prayer devoured widowes houses Such are the Popes chapmen the Pardoners that went up and downe with Popes pardons to sell remission of sinnes for money and soule Priests that would bee hired for money to sing Masses they also which shewed the reliques of Saints and kept pilgrimage Idols gathering thereby unto themselves no small advantage as Alexander the Coppersmith did at Ephesus by making silver shrines for Diana 2. Their is another kinde of Simonie which is not of meere spirituall things but of the Ecclesiasticall places functions and revenewes which are ordained for Ecclesiasticall and religious uses such is the buying and selling of Churches and Benefices by Patrones and their Clerkes whom they present for these by a consequent doe also buy and sell the mysteries and Sacraments of the Church when as the places and functions are set to sale wherein and whereby those holy rites are dispensed Thomas Aquinas doth very fitly apply that saying of Christ against all those which thus enter corruptly into the Church Iohn 10. Hee that entereth not in by the doore but climeth up another way is a theefe and a robber Thom. in opuscul So much of the theft of sacred things QUEST
Exod. 40.15 but how or in what part they were anointed is not expressed Afterward only the high Priest was anointed as Levit. 4.3 If the Priest that is anointed doe sinne that is the high Priest and Levit. 21.10 Also the high Priest among his brethren upon whose head the anointing oyle was powred c. The inferiour Priests were only anointed at their first consecration by which anointing they and their posteritie were consecrated to exercise a perpetuall Priesthood as the Lord saith Exod. 40.15 Their anointing shall be a signe that the priesthood shall be euerlasting unto them throughout their generations And in this sense Aristobulus is said to bee of the stocke of the anointed Priests 2 Macchab. 1.10 Iun. in cap. 40. vers 15. QUEST XXXIII Who are understood here by the name of the children of Israel whether the Levites also are there comprehended Vers. 31. MOreover thou shalt speake unto the children of Israel 1. Tostatus though in other places he thinketh the tribe of Levi to be excluded in this manner of speech and to be distinguished from the children of Israel as chap. 29.28 the breast and shoulder there given unto the Priests are said to be an heave offering of the children of Israel so also Numb 1.2 it is said take yee the summe of the congregation of the children of Israel and yet the tribe of Levi was not numbred among them as it followeth vers 40. yet in this place he thinketh that the Levites are comprehended under the name of the children of Israel for otherwise they should not be forbidden to make a composition like unto this perfume for their private uses 2. But it may appeare by these reasons that the other tribes onely beside Levi. are called here by the name of the children of Israel 1. Because in this verie chapter it is used in that sense as vers 12. When thou shalt take the summe of the children of Israel for here the Levites were not numbred Numb 1.40 2. This is a generall speech vers 32. None shall anoint mans flesh therewith neither shall you make any composition like unto it c. But the Priests flesh might be anointed therewith and it was lawfull for them to make the like composition for the use of the Tabernacle therefore the Priests are not here comprehended 3. Yet was it not lawfull for the Priests to prophane that holy oyntment which is necessarily inferred before vers 29. all that the oyntment touched was sanctified and became holy the Priests therefore knew well enough by this that this oyntment was not to be put to any prophane use And if it were not lawfull for the people to prophane the holy oyntment much lesse for the Priests to whose charge and care those holy things were committed And by the like generall charge afterward vers 37. that none should make the like composition to the holy perfume they also might understand this caveat touching the holy oyntment to be as generall QUEST XXXIV Of the forbidden uses whereunto this oyntment should not be put Vers. 32. NOne shall anoint mans flesh Three things are forbidden concerning the private use of this oyntment 1. That no mans flesh should be anointed therewith that is for delight or of wantonnesse Tostat. nor otherwise than is before prescribed for Aaron and his sons might be anointed therewith as God before commanded to consecrate them Simler 2. It was not lawfull for them to make any composition like unto it though they put it to no use for it might give an occasion of prophanation to have but the like composition in their houses As upon the same reason where they are commanded to eat no leavened bread for seven daies in the feast of the Passeover they are charged to remove leaven out of their houses Exod. 12.15 though they did not eat it it was not lawfull so much as to have it in their houses lest it might have beene an occasion to transgresse Tostat. qu. 13. They might make an oyntment of some of these or of all them so they did it not after the same manner and with the like composition Lyran. But I thinke rather with Oleaster and Borrhaius that they were not to make the like oyntment either in number or weight for the word tacaâ— signifieth as well to number as weigh 3. They are forbidden also to put any of it upon a stranger which Augustine expoundeth exterae nationi upon one of a forraine nation so also Tostatus upon a Gentile Some by a stranger understand any of Israel that is not a Priest Vatab. Simler But the people of Israel to whom this charge belongeth did not use to anoint Priests and if it were understood of anointing any person so much is said before none shall anoint mans flesh therefore Iunius giveth a better sense aut quisquam imponet ex eo rei extraneae if any man shall put thereon upon any strange that is prophane or common thing c. which is not consecrated to an holy use So also Oleaster 4. Tostatus here moveth divers questions qu. 14.15 as whether a Gentile not knowing the God of Israel or if he did yet were no proselyte nor converted to Judaisme if he should use the like composition whether he should therein offend or not and he resolveth he should not because this Law is given onely to the children of Israel who had bound themselves by covenant to keepe all the Lords ordinances wherein he resolveth well unlesse any such Gentile should doe it in the contempt of the God of Israel But he might have spared all this labour for these questions are altogether impertinent here seeing as is before shewed not any strange person is here understood but strange and common things QUEST XXXV Whether the anointing of Kings were not against this Law in cap. 3. Habacuk Vers. 32. NOne shall anoint mans flesh It is here doubted how it was lawfull afterward to anoint Kings and Prophets with this oile wherewith the Priests onely and the holy things were to bee anointed 1. Some thinke it was another kinde of oile as Hierom saith Est aliud unguentum quo reges unguntur c. There is another ointment wherewith Kings were anointed And that he saith was of two sorts David and Salomon cornu unguntur are anointed with an horne but Iehu and Hazael lenticula with a violl called in Hebrew phach But howsoever it may be thought that Iehu and Hazael were not anointed with the holy ointment which was kept in the Temple at Jerusalem yet it is like that both Samuel filled his horne with this oile wherewith David was anointed 1 Sam. 16.1 and that Zadok the Priest anointed Salomon therewith 1 King 1.34 Simler 2. Some thinke that whereas they are forbidden to lay this oile upon any stranger the Priests and Kings were not excepted Borrhaius But if by strangers we understand persons as well the King as other of the lay people were strangers in respect of the Priesthood as it is
33.18 the true reading is that Iacob came Shalem safe to the City Sichem as the Chalde interpreteth not to Shalem a City of Sichem Secondly that Salim where Iohn baptized is the same City which is called Shagnalim or Schalem belonging to the tribe of Benjamin 1 Sam. 9.4 wherefore this Shalem in Sichem hath no ground out of Scripture 2. Hierome saith that there was a towne neare to Scythopolis called Salem in his time where the ruines of Melchisedecks pallace were to be seene Answ. But whence shall it be knowne that Melchisedecks pallace sometime stood in that place this is warranted onely by an uncertaine report neither is it like that Melchisedeck being a King of one small City did build himselfe such a sumptuous and great Pallace whose foundation should continue so long above two thousand yeares 3. The City of Jerusalem was much out of Abrahams way as he returned from Dan but the other Salem was in his way Hierom. Answ. As though a small distance of way could hinder Gods purpose in causing Melchisedeck and Abraham to meet which might be either in drawing Melchisedech somewhat from home to salute the Patriarke or in moving Abraham to visit the City Salem famous for the true worship and service of God 4. But Hierusalem cannot come of Salem for so two words of divers languages should be mixed together the first name being Greeke the other Hebrew Answ. Hierome imagineth that the first part of this name should come of the Greeke Hieros holy for so Jerusalem was called the holy City But the Hebrewes doe better derive the name of Jerusalem they say Sem called it Salem and Abraham Jireh there the Lord will be seene Gen. 22.14 which both put together make Jerusalem which signifieth the vision of peace so Midras in Psal. 76. This derivation of Jerusalem is more probable than from the Greeke Iireh as Hierome or from Jebus and Salem which make Jebusalem and for better sound to the Jerusalem as Pererius Wherefore I preferre rather the opinion of Iosephus that this Salem was the same City which was called afterward Jerusalem for these reasons 1. Because there is no evident mention in Scripture of any other City called Salem but this converted into the name of Jerusalem two Salems we read not of one was Jerusalem 2. This is evident Psal. 76.2 In Shalem is his Tabernacle his dwelling in Sion Sion then and Shalem were both in one place 3. The Jewes also hold this tradition that the place where David and Salomon built the Temple in the floure of Araunah is the same place where Abraham built an Altar and would have sacrificed Isaack where Noah first built when he came out of the Arke where Cain and Abel offered c. This place then being consecrate with so many Altars and sacrifices is like to be the place where the greater sacrificer and high Priest Melchisedeck dwelt 4. The type also better answereth to the body that Melchisedeck a figure of the high priest Ihesus should there dwell where Christ afterward performed that great and divine act of his Priesthood in offering himselfe up in sarifice upon the Crosse at Jerusalem QVEST. XVIII How Abraham is blessed of Melchisedeck Vers. 19. HE blessed him c. 1. It is like that Melchisedeck used a more ample forme and manner of blessing which is here onely abridged by Moses Luther 2. Though Melchisedeck blesse Abraham first and then God herein hee offended not as the Hebrewes affirme and for that cause they say his Priesthood was translated to the posterity of Abraham for beside that the servants of God in their prayers being carried with zeale forget to observe order even this blessing pronounced upon Abraham is referred to the praise of God As also the Apostle otherwise collecteth that Melchisedeck was greater than Abraham in that he blessed him and that his Priesthood was not translated to Aaron but to Christ ex Mecrer 3. Abraham is blessed and God is blessed but God is blessed Benedictione laudis with the blessing of praise Abraham Benedictione opitulationis with the blessing of Gods helpe or assistance Cajetane 4. Neither is Abraham pronounced blessed onely herein because hee had obtained this victorie but aeterni faederis respectu in respect of the eternall covenant which God made with him and his seed Vatablus 5. And this is more than an ordinary blessing it is a Priestly benediction and it is set forth as an act of Melchisedecks Priesthood whereby he ratifieth the promise made to Abraham Calvin 6. Melchisedeck is found to be the first that giveth this title unto God in Scripture to be possessor of heaven and earth Tostatus whereby the true God is distinguished from all false gods QVEST. XIX How Abraham payed tithes Vers. 20. ANd he gave him tithes of all c. 1. Although it bee not expressed in the text whether Melchisedeck or Abraham gave tithes yet the Apostle cleareth this doubt that he received tithes of Abraham Heb. 7.6 and the text also giveth this sense for seeing Melchisedeck is named to be a Priest he was more fit to receive than give tithes 2. Some thinke that Abraham gave not tithes of all the goods recovered seeing â—e after refused to take so much as a shooe threed of that which belonged to the King of Sodome vers 25. He then gave tithes onely of his owne substance Calvin Mercer But though Abraham refused to touch any part of the Sodomites substance in himselfe for his owne use yet he might even of that offer the tithe unto God 1. Because it was his by common â—ight and the law of Nations 2. Because he giveth reason lest he should say that he had made Abraham rich which reason served onely against the private and proper use not the publike and religious use of those goods 3. If Abraham had not prevented them in giving the honour of the victory unto God the Sodomites would have offered the same things in sacrifice to their Idols Neither is the opinion of Cajetane to be allowed that Abraham gave not the just tenth part as afterward was appointed by the Law but a certaine portion in the name of the tenth for the Apostle sheweth that Abraham paid tithes properly and Levi in Abraham was tithed as the Levites received tithes afterwards Heb. 7.5 6. 4. Whereas Levi is said to pay tithes in Abraham being yet in his loynes and thereby proveth the Priesthood of Melchisedeck to be greater than of Levi that is so said because the Priesthood went then by carnall generation not by spirituall election as now under the Gospell 5. And though Christ were also in Abrahams loynes secundum substantiam corporalem in respect of his corporall substance yet he was not there secundum rationem conceptionis in regard of the manner of his conception because he was conceived by the holy Ghost But Levi was in Abrahams loynes both wayes and therefore the argument for superiority in Melchisedeck concludeth well
the mariner that worketh the evill spirit as the winde and weather that tempteth and moveth God as the sternes man that directeth and guideth all So Augustines resolution is Deus voluntatem ejus proprio suo vitio malum in hoc peccatum judicio suo justo occulto inclinavit God by his just and secret judgement inclined his will being evill by his owne corruption into this sinne De liber arbit cap. 20. Hee there speaketh of Shemei whom David saith God bid curse him the like may bee said of Pharaoh who is properly said to have hardened his owne heart Exod. 8.15 as the next and immediate worker of it but God hardened it concurring as a just Judge in punishing Pharaohs sinne by obstinacie and hardnesse of heart See more of this question before chap. 1. doct 1. QUEST XX. How Israel is called the first borne sonne of God Vers. 22. ISrael is my sonne even my first borne 1. Israel is called the Lords first borne not only in respect of eternall election as Pellican for the election of God doth not hinder terrene government they might be eternally elected of God and yet bee Pharaohs servants still 2. Neither is this spoken only comparatively because they were the first nation that publikely professed the worship of God and had the prioritie of the Gentiles who were as the younger brother Ferus 3. Nor yet is it spoken only by way of similâ—tude that they were as deere unto God as the first borne Piscator 4. But they were the first borne people by a peculiar election whereby the Lord had set them apart from all other people to whom he would give his lawes and therefore Pharaoh was not to keepe them in servitude belonging to another Lord Simler Therefore to them did belong the right and preeminence of the first borne as dignity authority Borrh. And they were beloved of God in the right of the Messiah the first borne of all creatures and the only begotten sonne of God Iun. who was to bee borne of that nation according to the flesh Osiander 5. Therefore God will slay the first borne of Egypt both of man and beast because of the injurie offered to his first borne and this being the last judgement which was shewed upon Egypt it is like that God revealed to Moses aforehand all those severall plagues which afterward were sent upon Pharaoh QUEST XXI Who smot Moses in the Iune and how Vers. 24. THe Lord met him and would have killed him 1. In the Hebrew it is said Iehovah met him the Latin and Septuagint read the Angell of Iehovah giving the sense rather than the word for Iehovah by his Angell smote Moses the Angels of God are found in Scripture to bee the Ministers of Gods judgements Pellican Iun. 2. Tertullian thinketh that Moses sonne that was uncircumcised was in danger rather than Moses himselfe but that is not like for then Moses himselfe rather if he had beene in case would have circumcised the child rather than his wife 3. For the manner of punishment inflicted upon Moses that is a ridiculous fable of R. Salomon that the Angell appeared in likenesse of a Dragon and swallowed up Moses past the middle to the place of his circumcision and then when Zipporah in haste had circumcised the child hee let him goe againe Theodoret thinketh that the Angell appeared with a drawne sword threatning Moses but Moses was more than threatned for hee was so weake that hee was not able to circumcise his child therefore the common opinion of the Hebrewes is that Moses was smitten with some sudden disease as may appeare in that his wife was faine to cut off her sonnes foreskinne and yet it is like that whether the Angell appeared in a visible humane shape or otherwise came upon Moses thar by some visible and evident signe hee and his wife perceived that it was for neglect of circumcision Iun. QUEST XXII For what sinne the Lord would have killed Moses NOw concerning the cause why the Lord laid his heavy hand upon Moses 1. It was neither because he carried his wife and children with him which were a cumber unto him and therefore hee sent them bake as Augustine and Eusebius Emisenus for seeing Moses had no speciall commandement to leave them behind he was therein to follow the common order and duty required in matrimony to take care of his wife and children Simler And he could not have left his wife behinde without offence to his father in law who might have thought hee had neglected her and would take him another wife in Egypt 2. Neither was his feare the cause because he was afraid to goe unto Pharaoh as Theodoret for he was now in his journey and was resolved to goe forward 3. Therefore the cause indeed was for the neglect of the circumcision of the child as David Kimhi Rupertus Thostatus with others Ex Pereriâ— as it may appeare because that as soone as the child was circumcised Moses was presently delivered from the danger therefore some Hebrewes conjecture that God punished him for making so long stay in the â—ane is frivilous and without ground Simler QUEST XXIII Whether the Israelites transgressed in omitting circumcision 40. yeeres in the wildernesse BUt it will be further questioned why the Lord was angry with Moses for deferring of circumcision and yeâ— he did tolerate it in the Israelites which were not circumcised in the desert by the space of forty yeeres as is evident Iosh. 5. Some therefore thinke that the Israelites were dispensed with for being not circumcised in the wildernesse because it was not so needfull in that place seeing the people were separated from all other nations and lived apart by themselves and therefore circumcision was not so necessarie there the speciall end whereof was to distinguish the Israelites from all other people but when they came over Jordane among other nations then they received circumcision the badge or cognisance of their profession so Theodoret Damascen Contra. But this was not the principall end of circumcision to make difference betweene the Israelites and other people the chiefe scope thereof was to bee a seale of the covenant betweene God and his people and therefore ought not in any place to have beene neglected 2. Some therefore excuse this omission of circumcision in the desert by the continuall journeying of the Israelites they were still to follow the direction of the cloud whether by day or night but they could not travell immediatly upon their circumcision Perer. Who further addeth that if it had beene a fault in them Moses would not have suffered such a great breach of the law seeing the man that gathered stickes upon the Sabbath was punished Contra. 1. The continuall travell of the Israelites could not bee the chiefe or onely cause of such omission seeing they stayed many yeeres in one place as in Kadesh barnea Deut. 1.46 and when they were circumcised in Gilgal they were presently also to goe forward
Numb 10.29 where Hobab is said to be the sonne of Reguel 2. Oleaster thinketh Iethro and Reguel to be the same so also Iosephus and that Hobab or Chobab was the sonne of Iethro and Reguel and brother to Zipporah And his reason that Iethro and Reguel are all one is because the same title is given to them both Iethro is said to be the Prince of Midian Exod. 3.1 and so is Reguel Exod. 2. Contra. 1. The reason why in one place the father is called the Prince in another the sonne is because the sonnes succeeded the fathers in the principalitie and Priesthood among the Gentiles as they did among the Jewes Lipoman in 2. Exod. Which thing was usuall in the primitive Church as Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus writing to Victor Bishop of Rome there sheweth that seven of his ancestors had beene Bishops in that place before him and he was the eighth Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 22. Pellican 2. Hobab could not be brother unto Zipporah for Numb 10.29 hee is called chothen the father in law of Moses which word though Oleaster contend to signifie a kinsman yet seeing Iethro is called by the same word chothen Exod. 3.1 it seemeth in the same sense also to be given unto Hobab 3. Therefore the truer opinion is that Iethro and Hobab were all one and Reguel was father unto Iethro and grandfather to Zipporah Moses wife Iun. Pellican as is before shewed cap. 2. quaest 26. 4. Some thinke that Iethro was a common name both to the father which was Reghuel and to the sonne which was Hobab Galas Exod. 3.1 But that is not like for Iethro onely hath this addition Moses father in law as it is ten times repeated in this Chapter But Reghuel is not so called Exod. 2. whose daughter Zipporah is said to be because the grandfathers with the Hebrewes are so called by the name of fathers I rest therefore in the former opinion as most probable 5. Concerning the word cohen which signifieth both Prince and Priest and whether Iethro were Prince or Priest or rather both see before cap. 2. quaest 27. It was an ancient custome that they which were Rulers and Magistrates to defend the people did execute also the Priests office by sacrifices and prayer to protect and direct them such an one was Melchisedeck and Iethro here Lippoman 6. Likewise whether Iethro were the worshipper of the true God is handled before chap. 2. quest 28. where it is resolved that he was a worshipper of the true God though not purely as Calvin saith Mihi videtur vitiatum fuisse aliqua ex parte illius sacerdotium It seemeth to me that his Priesthood had some blemish and was stained with superstition But it is not like that he sacrificed to Idols for Moses in all likelihood would not have married his daughter then or conversed with him so long Procopius saith that they worshipped the most high God as Melchisedeck did Nec tamen interim abstinebâ—nt ab idolatria But yet they abstained not from idolatrie But as Calvin saith there is difference betweene Idolatrie Et impurum Dei cultum degenerem in unae parte And the impure worship of God degenerating in some one part The religion then which Iethro professed was principally the worship of the true God yet intermingled with some superstitions of the idolatrous heathen though hee was not a professed Idolater QUEST II. How Iethro heard what the Lord had done for Moses and Israel WHen he heard all that God had done 1. Some thinke that Moses sent his wife out of the desert unto her father in law and that by this meanes Iethro had intelligence of Moses affaires Calvin But this to be unlikely shall be shewed afterward seeing it is very probable that Moses had sent backe his wife from the place where the child was circumcised by the way Exod. 4. 2. Some thinke that Moses had sent some message unto Iethro and so signified unto him what had happened Simler But the manner of speech When he heard giveth rather that he was led by some common fame and rumor though it is most like that Moses being now not farre from Midian would have sent to his father in law to his wife and children which were deare unto him if Iethro had not prevented him 3. Therefore the common fame and rumor which was spread among the nations moved Iethro to come Galas Especially seeing Midian was not far from Egypt bordering upon the red sea Simler And now Moses was not far from Midian being about mount Sinai where he had beene before time accustomed to keepe his fathers sheepe Tostat. From whence the report and rumour of the Israelites and their acts as the late victorie obtained against Amalek might easily be brought QUEST III. The causes which moved Iethro to come unto Moses Vers. 2. THen Iethro tooke Zipporah c. The causes which moved Iethro to take this journey were these 1. That he might congratulate and rejoyce for those great mercies and benefits which the Lord had vouchsafed unto Moses and all Israel Simler Which his joy is expressed afterward vers 9. Some of those benefits concerned Moses and the people in generall as the deliverance out of Egypt their passing thorow the red Sea the giving of Manna but some specially belonged unto Moses as that the Lord had made him the Captaine and guide of his people and had given him power to worke great miracles Tostat. Therefore both these are put together in the text When he had heard what the Lord had done for Moses and for Israel his people Iethro therefore came to shew and expresse his joy in both these respects 2. Beside another end of his comming was to bring unto Moses his wife and children Simler For he was not now farre off from the host of Israel the Citie of Midian being held to be but 16. miles distant from Rephidim where they had pitched last Pelarg. 3. Further though Iethro doubted not of the truth of those things which he had heard yet he is desirous to come to be an eye witnesse and present beholder of those great works which the Lord had done for them as of the cloudie and fierie piller of the Manna that fell dayly and the water that issued out of the rocke Simler 4. Yea he came to glorifie God to whom he offered sacrifice vers 12. Pellican and to joyne himselfe to the people of God wherein appeared Gods providence both toward Moses and Iethro that as he was a comfort and reliefe to Moseâ— in his exile for outward things so Moses should be a meanes for his spirituall good to bring him to the knowledge of God Ferus QUEST IV. When Moses had sent Zipporah away Vers. 2. AFter the sending her away 1. Some read after the sending that is of gifts either of Moses to his father in law Simler or of Iethro with his daughter Ex Lippoman But the pronoune ha is of the feminine gender and cannot agree to either
the Apostle maketh not any conjunction in situation And so the Replier is answered QUEST VI. How Moses is said to goe up unto God Vers. 3. MOses went up unto God c. 1. Some thinke that Moses went aside to give himselfe to prayer and meditation as he was wont Calvin But this phrase of going up unto God sheweth that this was some extraordinary calling of Moses unto that place 2. Others thinke that Moses went up into this mount uncalled because there the Lord sometime appeared before in the fiery bush and had appointed that to be the place where they should sacrifice unto him and therefore Moses went up to the mountaine but not to the top of the mountaine remembring that hee was before reproved for approching so neare Lyran. Tostat. 3. But it is more likely that Moses for the same reason went not up into the mount till the Lord called him because of the reverence of the place and so the words are to be read For the Lord had called him Simler Genevens So also Oleaster And then hee is said to goe up to God not because it was the mountaine where God had appeared Vatab. Or because there was the cloud or some visible signe of Gods presence Simler But for that he heard Gods voice calling unto him from the top of the hill Quamvis nulla species sensibilis scribatur apparens in monte ipsa tamen vocatio c. Although no sensible shew is written to have appeared in the mountaine yet the very calling of God put Moses in hope there to find God Cajetan QUEST VII Why both these names of Iacob and Israel are joyned together Vers. 3. THou shalt thus say to the house of Iacob and tell the children of Israel c. 1. Hee calleth them the house or family of Iacob because as one house is to the master and father of the house so all that people were in respect of Iacob Tostat. They had all their beginning out of that family 2. He calleth them the house of Iacob rather than of Abraham or Izak because they had each of them but two sonnes nay in effect but one sonne a piece because the other were not counted their seede which were not sufficient to make a family but Iacob had 12. sonnes Oleaster 3. Both these names are joyned together Iacob and Israel to shew that as the first was Iacobs naturall and originall name the other was given him by grace so there were two sorts of Israelites those which were such only after the flesh others that were true Israelites according to promise Simler And that as Iacob had that name of supplanting and Israel for prevailing with God so they should seeke to be answerable to both these names in supplanting of vice and being strong with God Ferus And as Israel was a name given of God so they bearing this name should assure themselves they were the people of God QUEST VII How the Lord is said to carry them upon Eagles wings Vers. 4. I Carried you upon Eagles wings c. 1. Some by these two wings understand Moses and Aaron by whom the people were led Gloss. interlinear but Moses and Aaron themselves were carried upon these Eagles wings 2. Some understand the two Testaments Gloss. ordinar but they as yet had received neither of the Testaments 3. Therefore hereby is metaphorically described the singular protection of this people and their mighty defence and in divers respects 1. In respect of their speedy deliverance that all of them in one day being such a great multitude came out of Egypt which was an admirable thing Cajetan 2. In that they passed many difficulties in going thorow the red Sea in travelling thorow the wildernesse they went thorow all these hazards and difficulties as though they had beene carried upon Eagles wings Tostat. 3. The Hebrewes here write that the Eagle taketh her young ones and carrieth them upon her backe whereas other birds carry them in their talants whereby the Lord shewed his love Genevens and their safe and secure defence that they were extra omnem teli jactum without the compasse of all danger Tostat. Lippom. But this conjecture of the Eagles carrying her young ones upon her shoulders frivolum videtur seemeth to be of no great credit Calvin fictitium c. it may be thought to be fained Oleaster The Eagle is said to beare them on her wings because when the young ones begin to fly shee doth support them with her wings lest they should fall Oleaster and she soareth with them aloft using them to flie against the Sunne Calvin And so the meaning is that as the Eagle supporteth and protecteth her young ones while they flie aloft that no danger can come neere them so the Lord protected his people 4. And as the Eagle stirreth her nest and provoketh the young to fly and defendeth them in flying when she changeth her place and nest so the Lord transported and removed his people stirred them out of their uncleane nest in Egypt to bring them to Canaan Oleaster As Moses setteth forth this similitude at large Deut. 32.11 As an Eagle stirreth up her nest fluttereth over her birds stretcheth out her wings taketh them and beareth them on her wings 5. And as the Eagle taketh her young ones aloft sic Deus eduxit eos elevatos in filios Dei So God tooke them advanced or lifted up to bee the sonnes of God and as the Eagle from aloft defendeth her young ones so God de superna nube pugnavit pro eis did from the cloud above fight for his people Cajetan QUEST VIII How they are said to be the Lords chiefe treasure Vers. 4. YE shall be my chiefe treasure c. 1. The word is segulah which signifieth a speciall and peculiar treasure above the rest as that is called peculium which the sonne and heire of the house hath of his owne beside the right of his fathers inheritance which he may dispose of as he thinketh good so the meaning is this that although the whole earth be the Lords by the right of creation yet this people should have a speciall interest in God before all other Tostat. 2. Beside the Lord had given unto them his law as to no other people in the world which he had committed unto them as a chiefe and principall treasure Vatab. 3. And herein as the Lord sheweth what prerogative they had over other people so thereby is signified how deare and precious they were in the sight of God Vos veluti populum quendam eximium mihi consecravi I have consecrated you to my selfe as an excellent people Theodoret. QUEST IX How they are said to be a kingdome of Priests Vers. 5. YE shall be unto me a kingdome of Priests 1. That as the Levites and Priests were chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to bee peculiar unto the Lord for his service so the Lord had chosen the seede of Abraham out of all the nations of the world
4.28 as also in shewing an honest care in preserving and saving the goods of another as Iacob carefully kept Labans sheepe enduring both the frost of the night and the heat of the day Genes 31.40 Contrarie hereunto are 1. unfaithfulnesse in having no care to save the goods of another such a one is the unfaithfull Steward in the Parable that was accused for wasting his masters goods Luk. 16.1 2. Idlenesse and negligence the idle and slothfull S. Paul calleth inordinate walkers and giveth this rule concerning such that hee which would not worke should not â—at 2 Thess. 3.10 Now it will bee here objected that this vertue of Fidelitie belongeth unto the fifth Commandement as it is before rehearsed among the duties there prescribed and therefore appertaineth not to this place The answer is that the same vertue in respect of divers ends and offices by the which vertues are distinguished may bee referred to sundrie Commandements and so the grace and gift of faithfulnesse as it concurreth with obedience and dutie to Superiours belongeth to the fifth precept but as it respecteth the preserving of anothers goods and substance it hath the proper place here 3. Liberalitie is commanded which is a franke and voluntarie collation or bestowing of ones substance upon those which want discerning discreetly to whom where when and how much to give such an one was Iob Who did not eâ—t his morsels alone c. hee did not see any perish for want of cloathing c. Iob 31.17 19. Contrarie hereunto are 1. Sparing niggardlinesse such as was in Nabal that would afford nothing to David in his necessitie 2. And vaine prodigalitie such as was in the prodigall child Luk. 16. 4. Hospitalitie is a kinde of liberalitie which is especially extended to and exercised towards stranger and chiefly such as are exiled and banished out of their owne countrie for the Gospell and the truth sake for this vertue is Lot commended Heb. 13.2 Contrarie hereunto is inhumanitie toward strangers such was the crueltie of the Egyptians toward the Israelites that sojourned among them 5. Frugalitie joyned with parsimonie is a vertue also hitherto belonging which is a thriftie saving of such things as God sendeth and a provident employing of them to some profit whereby one is made more able to give and to shew his liberalitie for frugalitie and parsimonie are the two upholders and maintainers of true liberalitie for without frugalitie liberalitie will degenerate into niggardlinesse and without parsimonie into prodigalitie Of this frugalitie and parsimonie our blessed Saviour gave example when hee commanded after hee had fed the multitudes in the wildernesse that the broken meat should bee reserved and kept Mark 8. Contrarie hereunto are 1. Undiscreet wasting of the goods and unnecessarie liberalitie or rather superfluous prodigalitie as in Herod that promised if it were to the one halfe of his kingdome for a pleasing and wanton dance Mark 6. and the diseased woman had spent all shee had upon Physitians and was never the better Mark 5.26 2. And niggardly sparing when there is necessarie cause of spending as hee that pincheth his owne bellie and defraudeth his owne soule Ecclesiast 4.8 And such an one was that miserable man that Ambrose speaketh of Cui si quando â—vum appositum esset conqueri solebat quod pullus occisus esset Who if an egge were set before him would complaine that a chicken was killed lib. de Naboth cap. 2. hee could not affoord himselfe an egge to eat 3. Places of Controversie 1. Controv. and Confut. Against the Anabaptisticall communitie THou shalt not steale This precept overthroweth that error which first among the Heathen was maintained by Plato that all things among men ought to bee common the same also was held by the Heretickes called Apostolici and in these daies by the Anabaptists for if there were a communitie of goods then no man should have a propertie in any thing and so there could not bee any theft this law then maintaineth every mans peculiar and severall right and interest in that which hee hath First their objections shall bee answered that labour to have a communitie 1. Object The Apostles had all things common in Ierusalem Act. 2.44 Answ. 1. That custome was then both easie because they were few and necessarie for if they had not sold their possessions and so made the use common they by violence should have been stripped of them now there is neither the like facilitie nor necessitie 2. That communion was voluntarie not imposed upon any for it was in their choise whether they would sell their possessions or not as Peter saith to Anâ—â—ias Act. 5.4 After it was sold was it not in thine owne power Vrsin 3. Neither were all things common among them they had some things private and peculiar to themselves as Mary had her proper house and dwelling in the citie Act. 12.12 Simler 4. Beside this was not the generall custome of the whole Church for in Achaia and Macedonia there was gathering made for the Saints at Ierusalem it was then particular for that place and peculiar to that time therefore a generall rule for all times and places cannot bee taken from thence Simler 5. Neither were then things so indifferently common as that every man might take what hee would but the things in common were distributed according as every one had need Act. 5.35 2. Object Christ saith to the young man Mark 10.21 Goe and sell all that thou hast and give to the poore Ergo wee must doe the like Answ. 1. That was a personall precept and belonging to those times So the Apostles did leave their parentâ— and their houses but wee are not commanded now to doe the like Simler 2. Beside our Saviour so said to shew how farre hee came short of the perfection of the law and to humble him that thought so well of himselfe 3. Further our blessed Saviour saith not make thy goods common but give unto the poore which are two divert things Vrsin 3. Object The Apostle saith All things 〈◊〉 yours 1 Cor. 3.21 Ergo all things ought to bee common Answer 1. The Apostles meaning is that all things were ordained for their good whether life or death things present or things to come 2. Hee speaketh not of a common possession of all things in right but that they are common in use they had jus ad rem non jus â—nre right to the thing not in the thing Vrsin Now on the contrary that it is lawfull for Christians to retaine a severall right and propertie in those things which they possesse it may thus appeare 1. The Scripture alloweth contracts as buying and selling as Abraham bought a buriall place of Ephron Gen. 23. David the threshing floore of 〈◊〉 2. Sam. 24. but there can be no such contracts ubi non sunt distincta rerum dominia where there are 〈◊〉 distinct properties in things And if they shall object that these examples of the old Testament belong not unto
and unregenerate are wholly sold over unto sinne and their very conscience is polluted Vrsin 4. In the glorious state of the Saints in the next life the obedience of the Saints shall bee perfect and they shall wholly be conformable to the will of God and then we shall be just not onely by the imputative justice of Christ sed propria essentiali justitia but by a proper essentiall justice and then we shall fully be made like to the image of Christ as the Apostle saith Rom. 8.29 Those which he knew before he also predestinate to be made like the image of his Sonne Marbach Now the contrarie objections are these 1. Object The works of the Spirit are perfect but good works in the regenerate are the works of the Spirit therefore they are perfect Answ. This argument proceedeth from that which is simpliciter simplie and absolutely said to bee of the Spirit to that which secundum quid after a sort is of the Spirit the works of the faithfull are not absolutely the works of the Spirit but they are so the works of the Spirit as they be also our works so they are pure as they proceed of the Spirit but impure and imperfect as they are wrought by man 2. Object They which are conformable to the image of Christ have perfect works The faithfull are conformable in this life to the image of Christ Ergo. Answ. The proposition is true onely of those which are perfectly conformable but so are not the faithfull in this life but onely in part as the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 13.12 Now I know in part and as our knowledge is so is our obedience both imperfect 3. Object There is no condemnation to the faithfull Rom. 8.1 therefore their works are perfect Answ. The argument followeth not for the privilege of the faithfull and their exemption from condemnation dependeth not upon the perfection of their works but upon the perfection of Christs righteousnesse imputed to them by faith 4. Object Christ at his comming shall render unto every one according to his works but it standeth not with Gods justice to give a perfect reward unto imperfect works therefore the works of the regenerate because they shall be perfectly rewarded are perfect Answ. 1. The obedience of the faithfull shall bee perfectly rewarded not according to the law of works but according to the law of faith whereby the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed and is rewarded in them being theirs by faith as fully as if it were their owne 2. Yet Christ shall judge also according to their works not as causes of the reward but as testimonies and lively arguments of their faith Vrsin 5. Object The Scripture ascribeth perfection to the works of the Saints as it is said of Noah Gen. 6.9 that he was a just and perfect man in his time so Hezekiah saith 2 King 20.3 I have walked before thee with a perfect heart Answ. 1. These and the like sayings must be understood de perfectione partium non graduum of the perfection of the parts of obedience not of the degree of perfection that is the faithfull doe exercise their obedience in every part of the law but not in a perfect degree or measure 2. They are said to bee perfect in comparison onely of such as were weake and imperfect 3. And further their sinceritie and perfection is understood as being opposite unto dissimulation and hypocrisie that their heart was perfect toward the Lord that is unfained without any dissimulation in which sense the Prophet David saith Iudge me according to mine innocencie Psal. 7.8 6. Object The Apostle saith Whosoever is borne of God sinneth not 1 Iohn 3.9 the faithfull then being borne of God sinne not Answ. The Apostle understandeth here not the dwelling of sinne but the reigning of sinne for otherwise he should be contrarie to himselfe who had said before chap. 1.8 If we say we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us They which are borne of God sinne not that is sinne though it remaine in them it reigneth not in them as S. Paul saith Though we walke in the flesh we doe not warre after the flesh Vrsin 7. It is evident then that the law was not given to justifie men thereby as the Apostle saith Rom. 3.20 Therefore by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne This then is the end and use of the law 1. It sheweth what God is one that loveth justice and hateth iniquitie 2. It is as a glasse wherein we may see that image after the which man was at the first created which now is defaced in him by sinne 3. It is a rule and line after the which wee should square out our life and actions 4. It sheweth the corruption of our nature and so is as a schoolemaster to bring us to Christ Marbach So Augustine saith Hac est utilitas legis ut hominem de sua infirmitate convincat gratiae medicinam quae in Christo est implorare compellat This is the profit of the law to convince man of his infirmitie and to drive him to seeke the medicine of grace in Christ Epist. 200. 6. Confut. That the Morall law nor any precept thereof may be by humane authoritie dispensed with THere remaineth yet one point to be discussed whether any of the precepts of the Morall law may be by humane authoritie dispensed withall wherein the Popes Canonists have heretofore given unto their terrene god an infinite and unreasonable power for these were their conclusions that Papa potest dispensare contra jus divinum The Pope may dispense against the law of God contra jus natura against the law of nature contra novum Testamentum against the new Testament contra Apostolum against the Apostle Papa potest dispensare de omnibus praeceptis veteris novi Testamenti The Pope may dispense with all the precepts of the old and new Testament c. But herein I preferre the judgement of Tostatus a moderate writer of that side who denieth unto the Pope any such authoritie and answereth the contrarie objections 1. Object As among men the Law-maker may dispense with his law so God that gave the Morall law is therefore above the law and may dispense with it and if God may dispense then the Prelates of the Church consequently may dispense because they are in Gods stead Answ. First to the proposition this may bee answered 1. That in humane lawes which tend unto the common good the preservation of the publike state the maintenance of peace and of justice the Law-giver himselfe cannot so dispense as to overthrow the end of those lawes as that it shall be lawfull to disturbe the publike state or such like for this were to evert the very scope and end of the law but yet in particular cases he may dispense as where an order is that every one shall watch
which is intended for the good of the Citie yet some may be dispensed withall and exempted from watching who may more necessarily bee employed for the common good for here although the letter of the law bee not precisely kept yet the intention of the Law-maker is observed which is to seeke and procure the common good So likewise 1. Universally the Lord himselfe neither will nor can dispense against his law as to make it lawfull to have other gods to take Gods name in vaine and such like for this were for God to denie himselfe to be just which were to deny himselfe but the Apostle saith God is faithfull and cannot denie himselfe 2 Tim 2.13 but to make it lawfull in generall to violate the precepts of the first and second Table were to denie his owne justice and so consequently to denie himselfe for God is most just yea justice it selfe and the law is a perfect rule of justice 2. Yet in the particular determinations of the law the Lord doth dispense as with Abrahams sacrificing of his sonne the Israelites robbing of the Egyptians the fornication of Ose the Prophet for the will of God which is most just and the right which he hath in the lives bodies and goods of men maketh these things lawfull being done by the Commandement of God which otherwise should bee unlawfull for as a man may use his Oxe or his Asse at his pleasure because they are ordained to his use so the Lord may doe with men take away their lives at his pleasure and that by a double right both because man by his sinne hath deserved to die and God as Creator may use the creature as it may best serve to his glorie And as a man may use his owne goods and that which is lent unto a man precariâ— freely and frankly during the pleasure of the lender he may when he will require againe so the earth being the Lords and the fulnesse thereof which he as it were lendeth unto man so long as it pleaseth him the Lord may justly at his pleasure transferre things from one to another So likewise in the third case of fornication like as matrimony maketh carnall copulation lawfull so the Lord may tale vinculum inducere by his commandement bring in and supplie the like bond as matrimonie is as when he commanded the Prophet to take him a wife of fornications Hose 1.3 the commandement of God made that lawfull which otherwise was unlawfull 3. But as God can make that which seemeth unjust to be lawfull and just so yet can he not make a just and good act to be evill and wicked as that he which worshippeth God aright doth evill or such like and the reason is because God by this meanes should bee contrarie to himselfe in commanding one so to worship him and yet to count him so worshipping him to doe evill Againe Impossibile est Deum facere quae non potest velle It is impossible for God to doe that hee cannot will now the Lord willeth none evill to be done therefore hee cannot make that which is good to be evill because he cannot denie himselfe who is onely good 4. Further a difference is to be made betweene the precepts of the first and secood Table God doth dispense with the precepts of the second which are referred to the good of our neighbour when he seeth it more to make for his owne glorie which is the chiefe end and scope of the duties of the first and second Table as when God commandeth to dishonour parents rather than to dishonour him and biddeth any kill and so in the rest but with the precepts of the first Table God dispenseth not because they are immediately referred to Gods glory for that were to consent to the dishonouring of himselfe And thus much for the answer to the first part of the argument Secondly it followeth not if God can dispense that therefore the Prelates of the Church may 1. Because the dispensation against a law must bee by as great authoritie as the law was first made by but the morall law grounded upon the law of nature was founded by the Author and Creator of nature and therefore by him onely and not by any else may it be dispensed with 2. As in naturall effects ordinarily there must goe before a naturall cause as a thing cannot be made hot unlesse fire or some other efficient cause of heat be put unto it so that the Pope himselfe cannot command a thing to bee hot but by such efficient cause of heat yet the Lord without any such mediate or ordinarie cause can make a thing hot by his infinite power supplying that cause himselfe so likewise in spirituall actions the Lord may supplie that which maketh the thing lawfull which man cannot doe unlesse some externall cause or circumstance doe concurre which maketh the act lawfull As to kill is an unlawfull act in it selfe neither can the Pope or any other make it lawfull to kill unlesse there be some cause that maketh it lawfull to kill as when the partie commanded to be slaine hath deserved to die But God to whom all men are debters and who is the Lord of every mans life may command to kill without any injustice although there be no such apparent cause or circumstance which should make that act lawfull 2. Object Further it is objected thus to restore that which is committed to a mans trust is a naturall dutie yet this is dispensed with when as a man refuseth to restore to a mad man his sword or weapon which he gave one to keepe so the Magistrate ordinarily dispenseth with that precept Thou shalt not kill when he commandeth malefactors to be slaine so the Macchabees dispensed with the Sabbath when they resolved to fight with their enemies upon the Sabbath 1 Macchab. chap. 2. as these precepts are dispensed withall by men so also may the rest Answ. 1. For the first instance there is in that particular case no dispensation against the law of nature for then by such dispensation it should bee made lawfull not to restore that which is committed to trust which cannot bee made lawfull by any dispensation for this were to crosse and overthrow the law of nature but not to restore a sword to a furious man is but a particular interpretation of that generall law of nature wherein the intent of that law is kept for it is agreeable to the law of nature to render whatsoever belongeth to another and the reason thereof is because it is just so it is lawfull by the same law nothwithstanding not to give unto a mad man his owne sword because it is just also the meaning and reason of the law is kept because the furious man would doe some hurt with his weapon and therefore to minister occasion and instruments unto his rage were unjust 2. In the other two particulars there is no dispensation but an interpretation rather or declaration of the law in the
master because she must so liberally be provided for But the reason thereof is because shee was sold upon hope of marriage which hope because shee is frustrate of this provision must be made by way of recompense But this maid is not like to have beene abused for then it had not beene enough to let her goe out free but he should endow her also according to the Law chap 23.16 3. Oleaster thus resolveth this text This maid either her master had company with or had not if the first either she displeased afterward and then he was to redeeme her that is to set her free or shee pleased then the father either tooke her to wife and so he was to use her as his wife on his sonne then hee should use her as his daughter or if he tooke another wife he was to provide all necessary things for her Now if her master had not knowne her she was to serve him to the yeere of Jubile unlesse shee before redeemed her selfe Contra. Oleaster faileth here in these points 1. Hee taketh redeeming for setting her free without money whereas redemption of a servant was not without money 2. If he had defiled her he was not only to set her free but to endow her as before is shewed 3. If â—he maid was to serve him to the yeere of Jubile the maid servants should have lesse privilege than the Hebrew men servants that were to serve but six yeeres whereas this Law intendeth them greater favour 4. This then is the summe of the Law A man buyeth a maid servant an Hebrewesse he was either to suffer her friends to redeeme her or to marry her himselfe or give her to his sonne if none of these he was either to keepe her still providing all things necessary for her or to let her goe out free for nothing Iun. QUEST XXXIV Of the end scope and intent of this Law NOw concerning the end of this Law it is to be considered 1. That the father which should either of any unnaturall affection or compelled by necessity sell his daughter might by this meanes be punished by losing all his right and interest in his daughter who did now being sold out of her fathers power in familiam Domini transire passe and was as incorporate into her masters family Iun. And so the father should be as it were bridled hereby from selling of his daughter 2. Beside this Law imposing such hard conditions upon the master in such liberall sort to provide for his servant so bought thereby also provideth ut aut non emerentur ancillae that either maids should not be bought at all though their fathers were so hard hearted to sell them aut meliore conditione servirent or they should serve with better condition otherwise than as common servants Osiand Marbach And so this Law taketh order ut nunquam capite vacent that maids should never be without an head Iun. And so taketh care for them as the weaker sex 3. Further in that the master was permitted to take his maid to his wife though he had another before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 temporis licitum erat that was lawfull by the sufferance and toleration of those times Pelarg 4. Againe though it were simply unlawfull for the parents to sell their children sed ne progrediatur impietat ad intolerabilem iniquitatem c. but lest such impiety should proceed to intolerable iniquity and injury this Law provideth for such as were oppressed pro tanto sed non in totum though not wholly and totally yet to keepe them within some measure Lippom. 5. But this Law was much more equall than that Law of the ancient Romans in the 12. Tables which permitted fathers to sell their sonnes not once but againe and the third time only he was excepted which had married a wife with his fathers consent which was afterward forbidden C. de lib. posth or then that Law of Constantine that one might sell his sonne for extreme need and poverty though the sonne might afterward redeeme himselfe for the condition of children so sold was more tolerable among the Hebrewes their service being but for a time Simler This Law also is more reasonable than that constitution of Iustinian tit 6. de manumission that unlesse the maid servant were married within six moneths ab hero non dimittebatur shee was not at all to be dismissed from her master Pelarg. QUEST XXXV What kinde of smiting is here meant Vers. 12. HE that smiteth a man that hee dye 1. Here percussio accipitur pro occisione smiting is taken for killing Lyran. For if a man were smitten and died not of it there was another punishment than by death vers 19. Tostat. 2. Quamvis aliquo pòst tempore meriatur c. Although he dye not presently but some while after that is so smitten he shall suffer death for it Galas 3. The words are generall He that smiteth a man whether he were an Hebrew or no Hebrew his enemy or friend ex re percussa intquitas percutientis manifestatur the iniquity of the smiter appeareth by the thing that is smitten Cajetan 4. The Latine reads he that smiteth a man volens occidere having a purpose to kill him shall dye But two exceptions are taken to this reading for if a man did smite one non animo occidendi sed animo percutiendi not with a minde to kill him but to smite him only he should dye for it Cajetane And againe if a man intended to kill and did not he was not to dye for it for although before God he be a murtherer that intendeth it in his heart yet the Law of Moses doth not punish the intent only of murther but the effect Simler QUEST XXXVI Why the murtherer was to dye the death SHall dye the death c. 1. That is shall surely dye for this doubling of the word importat majorem certitudinem importeth greater certainty Tostat. The Interlinearie glosse expoundeth Morte spirituali vel corporali Death spirituall or bodily but I preferre the other sense 2. This Law is set downe in generall that whosoever smiteth so that death follow five intendat occidero sive non whether he purposed to kill or not should dye for it but afterward follow certaine exceptions from this Law Oleaster This then is a generall Law that he which killeth should be killed againe Lippom. 3. And this Law is grounded even upon the Law of nature for like as it is agreeable to nature Vt putridum membrum abscindatur ut reliqua conserventur that a rotten member should be cut off that the rest be preserved so a murtherer is to be killed ne plures occidentur lest more should be killed Lippom. This Law is given unto Noah Genes 9. when the world was restored and here it is but repeated and renued Pelarg. 4. The Lawes of other nations herein consent with Moses the Athenians did severely punish murther expelling the murtherer from the Temples of the gods and
the law of retalion there is no respect whether one did the hurt voluntarily or involuntarily but onely ut tantum reddatur pro tanto that so much be rendred for so much but it is not just that if one did hurt another against his will that the like hurt of purpose should be done to him againe Tostat. 2. But these objections may easily bee removed For first this law of retalion must be understood with two reservations that it is given de nocumentis personalibus concerning hurt done unto mens persons but it is otherwise in nocumentis rerum in the damage of ones things or substance for in that case not like is to be rendred for like but at the least double for one sometime more chap. 22.4 The other exception is that these personall wrongs are understood to be personarum non qualificatarum of persons not qualified but of common and ordinarie persons as is evident by the former law vers 15. that he which did smite his father and mother should not be smitten againe but was to die for it Cajetan Secondly this law of retalion must necessarily bee expounded of voluntarie and wilfull hurts for if hee that killed a man against his will was not to bee killed againe vers 13. so neither was hee which had done any hurt unwittingly to his neighbour in any of his parts or members to receive the like againe 3. This law then whatsoever can be objected to the contrarie was most equall those times considered 1. Lex talionis permissa est duro populo c. This law of retalion was permitted unto that hard people Sed charitas fidelium mitigatrix est hujus legis The charitie of the faithfull and beleevers doth mitigate the severitie of this law which teacheth them not to seeke revenge Lippoman 2 And Augustine further sheweth the reason of this law that it was made to moderate the unreasonable desire of men in seeking revenge Nonne videmus homines leviter laesos moliri caedem c. for doe we not see men being but a little hurt to goe about to kill to thirst for bloud c. therefore this law An eye for an eye c. non â—omes sed limes furoris est c. is not the kindler but the limiter of rage and revenge Lib. 12. contr Faust. cap. 25. 4. But whereas our blessed Saviour Matth. 5.39 having repeated this law addeth But I say unto you resist not evill c. he doth not abrogate this law but onely freeth it from the corrupt interpretations of the Jewes who hereby tooke unto themselves great libertie in following and fostering private revenge Our blessed Saviour therefore sheweth that privat men should not seeke to revenge their owne wrongs noâ— arrogate unto themselves that power which belongeth to the Magistrate who if hee did not right their wrongs they ought with patience rather to beare them than to bee Judges and revengers in their owne case Marbach QUEST LXI Of the servants freedome for the losse of an eye or tooth Vers. 26. IF a man smite his servant c. 1. This law is to bee understood of such servants as were not Hebrewes as may appeare vâ—â—s 20. for they were not to use the Hebrew servants so cruelly Levit. 25.38 Tostatus thinketh that if an Hebrew servant received a maime hee was not onely to bee set at libertie for his maime but also some other recompence was to be made beside because hee was to goe out free simply in the seventh yeere But I rather herein subscribe to Lyranus that in this case the former law of retalion was to take place if an Hebrew servant lost either an eye or tooth at his masters hand So also Iunius 2. If either one servant did maime another or a free man anothers servant Tostatus thinketh that in this case the smiter was to buy out his service that was maimed and if he were not able then hee was to serve in his place and this generall rule hee giveth that a quocunque servus percutiatur debet effici liber of whomsoever the servant was smitten hee was to bee made free His reason is because another had not more privilege than the servants master if then he was to bee set at libertie if his master smote him and maimed him much more if another did it Contra. This law onely containeth an exception concerning the master in all other the former law was to stand in force an eye for an eye c. which was no privilege for the stranger more than for the master but a greater punishment the master is privileged and exempted from the law of retalion for if the master should have lost a limme or member for his servant there would never have beene any agreement or accord betweene them afterward Marbach And therefore the law provideth that which was lesse grievous to the master and more beneficiall for the servant that he should have his freedome for his maime Simler Privandi enim sunt dominatu tanquam indigni For they were to bee deprived of their mastership and government as unworthy that could use it no more moderatly Gallas 3. There are foure kinds of smiting 1. When death followed whereof the law is set downe before vers 20. 2. If any limme were perished 3. If a wound were made and bloud followed 4. When no skin was broken but onely the blewnesse of the stripe seene for these two last there was no punishment appointed for the master but onely for the two first the one is provided for before vers 20. the second here Tostat. 4. By these two parts of the eye and tooth here expressed all other parts which might be in like manner blemished are signified Simler Lyranus out of R. Salomon nameth these parts for the which if they were perished the servant was to goe out free the ten fingers the ten toes the eares eyes nose and secret parts And why not also the hands and armes feet and legges as before in part is set downe in the law of retalion vers 24. 5. Procopius and Rabanus doe make this mysticall sense of this law by the eye they understand the minde by the tooth discretionem per quam subtiliter sententias Scripturarum comminuit the discerning whereby one divideth the sentences of Scripture if any doe corrupt the judgement of his servant in matters of religion he must leave such a master and go where he may be better taught But where the literall meaning is plaine such mysticall applications are superfluous QUEST LXII What manner of smiting and goaring of a beast is here understood Vers. 28. IF an oxe goare c. 1. One kinde is put for all à parte totum intelligendum est One kinde of beast is named for the rest what beast soever is hurtfull unto man must thus bee served Augustin qu. 8. in Exod. So also Lyranus And this is agreeable to that law Gen. 9 5. At the hand of every beast will I require your bloud Gallas But
penaltie than the servant because he was the cause but if he were a mercenarie man or an hireling then he together with the master that set him aworke are joyntly to beare the losse because it was in his power to have refused Tostat. So then not onely he that maketh such a pit and leaveth it uncovered but he that also caused it are punishable by this law Iun. 3. But in this other point R. Salomon his opinion is very probable that this law must be understood of such pits as were made in such common and usuall places where cattell used to goe not of such as were digged in solitarie and unfrequented places as in the mountaines for then it was a meere chance if any such casualtie happened Tostat. Lyran. Neither can this law take place now when men have their severall and divided grounds wherein they make their pits and wels which divisions were not so usuall among the Israelites then Gallas 4. Though mention be made onely of the oxe and asse that shall fall into the pit yet there is the same reason of other cattell as of sheepe and goats Lyran. But there is a greater doubt what should bee done if a man and woman should perish by such meanes Simlerus seemeth to be of opinion that the owner or maker of the pit should be punished in this case as if hee had not kept his oxe that used to goare But the life of man is of greater value than to be taken away where there is no direct law but by a kinde of consequent If indeed any man should of purpose leave open a well to intrap his brother here he is guiltie of wilfull murther because he lay in wait for his brother and therefore was to die for it according to the law vers 14. But if the pit bee left open of negligence in this case the digger of the pit shall not make satisfaction for the life of a man as for a beast there decaying because a man in his reason and discretion could better prevent the danger of falling into the pit than a bruit beast 5. Gregorie doth thus mystically applie this law Quid est aperire cisternam nisi sacra scriptura arcaâ— penetrare c. What is it to open a well but to search into the Arke of the sacred Scripture Subliâ—â—s sensus coram non capientibus silentiâ— contegat Let him cover with silence the high and secret sense before those which cannot conceive them otherwise he shall be guiltie si per verba ejus mens in scandalum c. if by his words the simple minde of the hearer shall be scandalized Gregor 17. moral cap. 13. 6. Thomas doth thus moralize Then one giveth occasion of falling to another which is to fall into the pit quando facit aliquid vel dicit minùs ratum when hee doth or saith any thing which is not right whereby occasion is ministred to another of falling Thom. quodlibet 4. art 23. ad 3. QUEST LXX How the live and dead oxe are to be divided where they were not of equall value Vers. 35. IF a mans oxe hurt his neighbours oxe c. they shall divide c. 1. This is not meant of the oxe onely but of other cattell also as if one mans ramme kill another à parte totum intelligendum est by one part the whole is to be understood August quaest 82. in Exod. 2. And this law is most equall because it cannot be knowne which of them first assaulted the other the one being not knowne to push more than the other that both the live dead should be equally divided Simler The like law the Romans had in the 12. tables that if ones beast hurt another the owner should make it good or deliver the beast Gallas 3. But this division must bee understood where the beasts are of equall value otherwise there should be wrong done to one of them As if the dead oxe were worth six pound and the live oxe but two pound if both should be divided then he that was owner of the live oxe should receive foure pound twice so much as his oxe were worth and the other should lose two pound in the price of his beast the meaning then is that an equall division should be made where the oxen are equall in value and the losse in the dead oxe to bee equally borne by them both as if the live oxe bee worth six pound and the dead oxe was worth as much being alive but now is valued at foure pound then either of them both the oxen being sold should have five pound a peece and so each of them should beare 20.s. losse Lyran. But where the value was unequall first the price must bee made up in money where the oddes was and then the rest divided as if the live oxe were worth 12. sicles and the dead oxe worth but six alive and foure now he is dead these being now both sold make 16. sicles in all of this summe first six sicles must be given unto the owner of the live oxe to make up the equall value of the dead oxe which was worth but six then the residue being ten sicles should bee divided to each of them five sicles and so the losse should bee indifferently borne betweene them Tostat. quaest 32. 4. To know then how an equall division may bee made when the beasts are of unequall value these rules must be observed 1. Si non perdit uterque aequaliter â—f both doe not lose alike the owner of the live beast and the owner of the dead the division is not equall Tostat. quaest 33. Medietas damni debet poni super unum c. The halfe of the losse must bee laid upon one and the other halfe upon the other Lyran. As if the live oxe be worth 12. sicles and the dead oxe was worth but six being alive and now is sold for foure here are two sicles lost which must bee equally borne betweene them so that the owner must have five sicles and so he loseth but one 2. Another rule is that if either of the owners receive more for the live or dead oxe than it was worth being alive the division is not good as in the former example if the owner of the live oxe should have above 12. sicles or the owner of the dead above six 3. If the owner of the dead oxe have lesse allowed him than his dead oxe is worth as if hee should receive but three sicles when the dead carcase is sold for foure 4. If the owner of the dead oxe receive as much for the dead as he was worth alive as namely six sicles whereas he is worth but foure the division is unjust for now the whole losse of two sicles should lie altogether upon the owner of the live oxe Tostat. quaest 33. 4. Places of Doctrine 1. Doct. Of keeping the seventh day of rest holy unto God Vers. 2 IN the seventh yeare he shall goe out free Consider here
intendeth should not be diminished or empaired but made good to the owner But concerning other goods no such restitution was to be made Gallas Lippom. Contra. They are herein deceived for the former generall Law maketh mention of oxen asses sheepe and generally of whatsoever is lost wherein any fraud may be committed 2. Cajetane and Simlerus give this reason because the other Law speaketh expresly of things stollen out of the keepers or depositories house which the owner made choice of for the sure keeping of his goods and therefore if they be stollen it is upon his owne perill because he made no better choice of the place Now living creatures are not committed to the safe keeping of the place but to the keepers diligence and care so that if they be stollen it is through his default and negligence To the same purpose also Calvine But this reason giveth not satisfaction because in the other Law vers 9. mention is made also of oxen asses sheepe and other living creatures 3. This then is the difference that the former Law speaketh of things committed freely to ones trust without any consideration or reward but here of such things which a man is waged or hired to keepe and therefore in this case he is to make good that which was stollen and not in the other Cujus ratio est quia pro custodia habet mercedem The reason is because he had a reward for his keeping Lyran. Tostat. And this appeareth yet more evidently by Iakobs practice Genes 31.39 Laban required it of his hand whether it were stollen by night or by day because he waged with Iakob to keepe his sheepe Iun. Gallasius objecteth against this example that Iakob there had boasted in vaine quod solus ista damna pertulisset that he alone had borne these losses if it had beene an ordinary thing so to doe Contra. Iakob in that place to purge himselfe of all suspition of fraud or negligence alleageth two things one that whatsoever was torne he brought it not to Laban as the manner was but made it good himselfe and herein Iakob did more than he was bound to doe the other is concerning Labans strictnesse that required of him that which was stollen wherein Laban did according to the common use but yet his hard dealing appeared in exacting of his sonne in Law as of a stranger QUEST XIV How the case of theft differeth from other casualties in matters of trust Vers. 10. IF it dye or be hurt or taken away by enemies c. 1. In these cases the keeper was not to make restitution as if it were stollen the reason is because these casualties could not by humane diligence or foresight be prevented as the other might Simler So Thomas Depositivum poterat perdi dupliciter ex causa inevitabili c. The thing committed to ones trust might be lost two wayes either by a cause inevitable which could not be shunned or prevented and the same either naturall as by disease and death or externall as if it were taken of the enemy or devoured of wild beasts or the cause might be evitabilis such as might be prevented as in stealing 2. But such casualty and death is here understood as is not procured by the deceit and craft of the keeper as if he defrauded the beast of his meat or overwrought it or if it became lame and broken by his smiting and abusing of it for in these cases the keeper is to make good the losse yea though he had nothing at all for the keeping he was to make recompence if any kinde of way he had put his hand to his neighbours good vers 8. much more now seeing he was waged for the keeping and so here he is to take his oath that he hath not put his hand to his neighbours good that is that none of these casualties did befall by his default 3. And by these particular accidents which cannot be prevented other like unexpected and inevitable chances are understood Casus fortuitus non imputatur depositorio A case falling out by chance bindeth not the depositorie or keeper in trust though he have somewhat for the keeping as if the house be burned where he laid up anothers goods or the ship suffer wracke wherein such goods were embarked unlesse one of these three culpa pactum mora interciderit the keepers fault some compact or delay come betweene for if the casualty fall out by the keepers default or negligence or he have covenanted to make good what losse soever or keepe the goods longer in his hand than the owner agreed with him to keepe them in all these cases the keeper is bound to make satisfaction what chance soever happeneth Tostat quaest 7. QUEST XV. Whether it were reasonable that the matter should be put upon the parties oath Vers. 11. AN oath of the Lord c. 1. This kinde of probation to put a man to purge himselfe upon his oath was used when no other witnesses could be produced as it is added in the former verse and no man saw it that is alius à custode none beside the keeper Oleaster so that where other proofe might be had a man at the first should not be put upon his owne purgation Tostat. 2. Neither need it seeme strange that the controversie should be decided by the keepers oath for no man will commit a thing to another in trust unlesse he were first well perswaded of his honesty Suo ergo praejudicio testatus est eum esse virum bonum He therefore testified by his fore-judgement of him in trusting him that he is a good man Calvin and therefore it is no wrong unto him to have the matter tried by his oath whom he trusted 3. Here wee see the lawfull use of an oath to be an end of all controversie and strife as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 6. when no other proofe can be had Tostat. 4. And it is called the oath of Iehovah because they only are to sweare by the name of God Genevens QUEST XVI What was to be done if the thing kept in trust were devoured of some wild beast Vers. 13. IF it be torne in peeces he shall bring it in record 1. One way to testifie that it was torne of wild beasts was to bring a part of the prey recovered out of the ravenous beasts mouth as shepheards sometime used to doe Amos 3.11 Iun. This sense is expressed by the Chalde He shall bring that which is torne for a testimony and the Septuagint He shall bring it to his gate that is shew it to the owner And therefore Iacob herein approved his faithfull service to Laban that used not this liberty to bring that unto him which was torne but made it good himselfe Gen. 31.29 Tostat. 2. Another way to prove it to have beene torne with beasts was to bring proofe by witnesses that saw the ravenous beast to carry away the prey for this sentence hath relation to the former clause vers
this burning as it appeareth they are by their secret fornications the fruits of their burning lust then according to the Apostles rule it were better for them to marry Concerning the second I say with the Apostle Marriage is honourable among all men c. Heb. 13.4 therefore it is no dishonour nor disparagement to holy Orders 3. But the best answer is that this politike Law of Moses doth not binde us now otherwise than in respect of the generall equity thereof that fornication being a breach of the Morall law should be severely punished in every part and circumstance of the Law it is not necessary now to be kept For as by Moses Law it was left in the power of the maids father whether he thought it fit to give his daughter in marriage to the fornicatour so the Magistrate being the common father of the Common-wealth may in his discretion determine when it is fit for such marriages to proceed when otherwise Simler QUEST XXVIII Why the Law requireth the consent of the father to such marriages Vers. 17. IF her father refuse c. 1. There is great reason that this power should be given unto the father to chuse an husband for his daughter for many times it may so fall out that the fornicatour is such a lewd and ill disposed person that his daughter were but cast away to be bestowed upon such an one And if the fornicatour were necessarily to marry the maid so abused many would make practice of it of purpose by this meanes to get them rich wives Gallas 2. But because sometime if it were wholly left unto the maids father to give his daughter in marriage or to take a portion of money for her dowry some might aske unreasonable summes therefore the Law defineth that upon the refusall of the father the fornicator shall pay money according to the dowry of virgines such as parents of that state and condition used to give with their daughters Tostat. 3. And beside it must be understood that the fathers refusall must be reasonable Si officium piorum parentum praestant c. If they performe the office of good and godly parents For what if he refuse to give his daughter because he would match her into a bad stocke only respecting wealth not religion and piety in this case God is rather to be obeyed than man and the duty to the first table to be preferred before the second Borrhaius 4. Confirmatur hac lege patria potestas in liberos c. The authority of the father is confirmed by this Law toward their children in respect of their marriages that they should not be contracted without their consent Marbach QUEST XXIX Why next to the Law of fornication followeth the Law against witchcraft Vers. 18. THou shalt not suffer a witch to live c. 1. Some thinke that this precept is joyned to the former Quia sortilegia plerunque fiâ—â—t in his quae pertinent ad actum carnis c. Because sorcery is often used in those things which belong to the carnall act Lyran. So also Cajetane Et fortè adjecta est lex ista stupro virginis c. It may be this Law is joyned to the former of whoredome committed with a maid to insinuate that sorcery is much used to set forward venery and uncleane lust 2. Tostatus maketh this the reason of this connexion that as most of the Lawes in the former chapter concerned the ordring and directing partis irascibilis of the angry part of the minde the Lawes hitherto in this chapter partis concupiscibilis of the coveting part of the minde now these following belong to the direction partis rationalis of the reasonable part of the minde the judgement and understanding that it should not be corrupted with evill arts Tostat. qu. 12. 3. But the reason rather is that as fornication of the bodie immediatly before touched is odious before God and man so much more is the spirituall fornication of the soule abominable when any seduced by the devill into witchcraft or any such devillish trade doe forsake God and commit most grosse idolatrie Simler And so hereunto agreeable is that law which followeth in the next verse but one vers 20. that hee should be slaine that offereth unto any gods but to the Lord. QUEST XXX What kinde of witchcraft is here understood A Witch 1. The word is niecashephah which signifieth as Oleaster out of R. Abraham one that changeth any thing before the sight wee call them Juglers which deceive the sight and cast a mist before the eyes The right Latine word is praestigiatrix Iun. Montanus one which by legerdemaine deludeth the eyes 2. But under this kinde by a Synecdoche all other sorts of witchcraft sorcerie inchauntment are forbidden as Hydromantae which use divination by water Aeromanta by the aire Pyromantae by the fire Capniomantae by smoake Alectriomantae by the crowing of Cockes Psycomanta that consult with the soules of the dead Alphitomanta which divine by the inspection of flower Icthuomantae by fish Libanomantae by incense Cheiromantae by the hand Necromantae diviners by the dead Gastromantae which divine and give answers from within out of their bellies and all other of the same devillish profession See hereof before 3. Instance is given here of women and the word is put also in the feminine Quia illud genus maleficii crebriùs reperitur in foemina Because that kinde of sorcerie is oftner found in women Lippom Quia procliviores sunt in hoc scelus ex infirmitate mulieres Because women by the infirmitie of their sex are more prone unto this mischiefe and women are named that no compassion should bee shewed no not unto the weaker sex if they be thus seduced Iun. Nec minus hoc damnantur mares quam foemina Yet men witches are no lesse condemned here than women Gallasius QUEST XXXI Whether love may bee procured by sorcerie BUt because it is the opinion of some as is before shewed qu. 29. that this law of witchcraft is annexed to the former law against fornication because sorcerie may be used to procure unlawfull lust it shall not bee amisse somewhat to touch that point 1. Virgil a great practitioner in such feats sheweth in his 8. Eclog how Daphnis was compelled to come by certaine inchanted love verses where hee often repeateth this verse Ducite ab urbe domum mea carmina ducite Daphnin My verses goe from citie see goe bring yee Daphnis home to mee And Hierome in the life of Hilarion as Tostatus citeth him reporteth how a young man enamoured with a virgin by certaine words and enchaunted figures put under the threshold where the maid was drave her into such fits of raging love that shee tore her haire and whetted her teeth and often used to call the young man by his name this maid thus tormented her parents brought to Hilarion who by his prayers healed her 2. Now then this instigation unto love by sorcerie and diabolicall subtiltie may be
is as it were the eighth day before the tribunall of Christ. 4. Lippoman doth thus morally applie it Nihil Deo offerendum nisi integrum perfectum Nothing must be offered unto God but that which is entire and perfect 5. But the end and use onely was historicall that the first borne should not bee presented unto God before the eighth day because they were yet unfit for any service Marbach Quia talia animalia erant quasi abortiva nondum plenae consistentiae propter teneritudinem Because such yong beasts were yet but as abortive fruit not well consisting or put together because of their tendernesse Thomas QUEST LX. Why they are forbidden to eat flesh torne of beasts Vers. 31. NEither shall yee eat any flesh that is torne c. 1. As well that which was rent and torne of any beast cleane or uncleane as if it were goared of an oxe was not to bee eaten because the bloud was in it as also that which was tasted before and eaten by any uncleane beast as the Latine readeth praegustata if it were tasted before because an uncleane beast had touched it and so made it uncleane Simler Tostatus 2. Not onely that part of the flesh which was so torne but all the whole carcase was to be refused Lyranus Such were fowles and beasts taken in hawking or hunting Tostatus 3. And not onely that which was torne and thereof died but if it after lived and were killed by themselves yet because it was torne of beasts it was uncleane unlesse the beast so torne lived to recover that hurt and and Anabaptists for although the Lord had chosen Israel out of all the nations of the world to bee an holy people to himselfe yet he did foresee that many would depart from his law and therefore appointeth divers kinds of punishment for the offenders Pelarg. 5. Places of controversie 1. Confut. Against the Anabaptisticall communitie Vers. 1. IF any man steale an oxe c. he shall restore five oxen c. This law doth evidently convince the Anabaptists of error who would bring in a communitie of goods for if it were Gods will that all things should be common among men then were it no sinne to steale nay there could be no theft at all committed seeing then no man could take any thing wherein he had not as good an interest as another Ostaâ—d Neither was this onely Moses law that they should not steale but the doctrine of the Gospell also forbiddeth all kinde of theft and stealing Ephes. 4.28 Let him that stole steale no more but 〈◊〉 labour c. 2. Confut. A theefe by his deserved death doth not satisfie for the punishment of his sinne Vers. 2. IF hee bee smitten that he die Lippoman speaking of the capitall punishment of theft that although it doe not satisfie for sinne before God yet expiat eo supplicio 〈◊〉 temporales quanmissa culpa reatâ—â— pâ—nae aeternae reâ—anent exâ—lvendae c. It doth expiate or redeeme those temporall paines which after the fault pardoned and the guilt of eternall death remaine in Gods justice to bee paid c. Contra. This his assertion is grounded upon an error for where God forgiveth sinne he perfitly forgiveth both the sinne and the punishment thereto belonging As he saith by his Prophet I will forgive their iniquitie and remember their sinnes no more Ierem. 31.34 But if there remaine any temporall punishment still after forgivenesse then are the sinnes yet remembred because they are punished Indeed after remission obtained some chastisements remaine But as Chrysostom well saith God doth it Non de peccato sumons supplicium sed ad facuranos corrigens not taking punishment for our sinne but correcting us for our amendment afterward c. The theefe then by his death doth not satisfie before God either for his sinne or the punishment thereof temporall or eternall but onely satisfieth the politike law and giveth satisfaction unto men by his evill example offended His sinne together with the punishment is not otherwise pardoned than by faith in Christ. 3. Confut. Against the Romanists that abridge the power and libertie of the parents in marriage of their children Vers. 17. IF her Father refuse to give her c. This law giveth absolute power unto the father to ratifie his daughters marriage by consenting unto it or by dissenting to breake it off which sheweth what injurie is offred unto this libertie and right of parents by the practice of the Romish Church quae conjugia sine ullo parentum consensu inita probet which ratifieth marriages contracted and begun without consent of parents Gallas And Oleaster a writer of their owne hereupon inferreth thus Est que hic non parvum argumentum ad probandum c. Here is no small argument to prove that libertie unto marriage doth not altogether by the law of nature agree unto the same nor yet to enter into religion c. But it is an ordinarie thing with the Romanists both to marrie children without consent of their parents and to thrust them into Monasteries See more hereof elsewhere 4. Confut. Against Idolatrie Vers. 20. HE that offreth unto any gods but unto the Lord onely c. This is an evident place to convince all Idolaters of great impietie for they in bowing and kneeling unto Idols censing before them and making their prayers looking toward them doe apparently offer unto others than unto God onely Tostatus one of their owne thus writeth upon this text Non solum si immolet eis sed etiam si faciat alia pertinentia ad cultum divinum ut si flectat genua coram eis c. Not onely he which sacrificeth unto Idols but doth other things belonging to the divine worship as if he bow the knee before them c. was to be slaine Cyprian hereof thus excellently writeth Quid ante inepta simulachra sigmeâ—â—taterrâ—nae captivum corpus incurvas rectum te Deus fecit c. Why doest thou bow thy captive bodie before foolish images and terrene fictions God hath made thee upright c. looke up to heaven Quid te in lapsum mortis cum Serpente quem colis sternis What doest thou prostrate thy selfe with the Serpent whom thou worshippest into this deadly fall c. More hereof see elsewhere 5. Confut. Against those which either hold tithes not to be due by the word of God or challenge them by the ceremoniall law Vers. 29 THine abundance and thy liâ—â—ur c. This may be understood as well of the tithes as first fruits which arise of the fruits and increase of the earth whether they be drie or moist Concerning then the law of tithes there was in the paiment thereof a treble right Partim erat morale it was partly morall and naturall for that the people should allow necessarie maintenance unto those qui divine cultu ad salutem populi ministrabant which ministred for the salvation of the people in the divine
institution in Egypt every one killed it in his owne house that was to be done then because they were to strike the bloud upon the doore postes that it might be a signe of their deliverance from the plague while the Angell passed over to smite the Egyptians chap. 12.23 but afterward they were required to sacrifice the Passeover in the place which the Lord should chuse Deut. 16.2 2. Neither was it enough to bring the Passeover up to that place where the Tabernacle was but they were to present it at the doore of the Tabernacle where the Passeover was to be killed as other sacrifices and the bloud to be powred by the Altar 1. Because this was the generall Law for all sacrifices Levit. 17.3 but the Passeover was a sacrifice as here the Lord calleth it my sacrifice and Numb 9.13 he that was negligent to keepe the Passeover should be cut off from his people and this reason is yeelded thereof Because he brought not the offering of the Lord in due season 2. And againe it had beene to small purpose to enjoyne the people to come to the place of the Sanctuary with their Passeover to that end that they should observe no other rites and ceremonies therein than were appointed by the Law if every one might have killed the Passeover in his owne house for then they might have followed what rites they thought good Tostat. quaest 27. QUEST XLI Wherefore they were to eat only unleavened bread in the Passeover THou shalt not offer the blond with leavened bread c. 1. The unleavened bread which they were commanded to eat for seven dayes together is called the bread of tribulation Deut. 16.3 that as it is an unpleasant and unsavoury bread of it selfe so it should call to their remembrance the affliction which they endured in Egypt and consequently their deliverance from the same Simler Calvin 2. But to us it hath this signification first it forbiddeth quicquam Aegyptiacae doctrina divinis rebus admisceri c. that any Egyptiacall or false doctrine should be mingled with divine things Theodoret. As our blessed Saviour in this sense chargeth his Apostles to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisies Mark 8. Secondly the leaven signifieth malitiae nequitiae amaritudinem the bitternesse of malice and wickednesse Rabanus which we must seeke to purge forth as S. Paul applieth it 1 Cor. 5. QUEST XLII What first fruits are here mentioned in this Law Vers. 19. THe first of the first fruits of thy land 1. Some thinke that this Law is understood of the solemne oblation of the first fruits which were of three sorts novarum frugum of their new corne in the feast of the Passeover panum de novis frugibus pistorum of bread baked of the new corne at Pentecost novorum fructuum and of the new fruit as of wine and oile in the feast of Tabernacles But this solemne oblation of the first fruits was before rehearsed in particular vers 15 16. 2. It is rather therefore meant of those first fruits which every man was bound to offer unto the Lord in particular as the first fruits of their trees Levit. 19.25 Iun. The first fruit of their dowe Numb 15.21 and of other things which was to this end to acknowledge their thankfulnesse unto God for the fruits of the land which he had given them Deut. 26.10 Simler 3. Lyranus addeth further that these first fruits are specially understood of the seventh yeere when they did not sow any thing that because mention is made before onely of the first fruits of their labours vers 16. this is added that even they were to give the first fruits of that which the earth brought forth of it selfe in the seventh yeere without their labour that first in common they should offer the first fruits to the Priests before any did gather of them to their owne use which they were the rather to doe in the seventh yeere because those fruits were given them without their labour they were only of Gods sending and for that in that yeere they could not pay any tithes unto the Levices for the tenth part could not be set out from the nine parts because they did not gather the fruits of the earth together as in other yeeres but as they needed them and the remainder was for the beasts of the field therefore they could not gosse at the tenth and the tenth was due from the owner where he tooke the nine parts to himselfe but here the owner tooke no more than another the fruits of the seventh yeere were common unto all Tostat. qu. 29. QUEST XLIII What it is to seeth a kid in the mothers milke Vers. 19. THou shalt not seeth a kid in his mothers milke 1. Some thinke the meaning of this Law is that they should not offer a sucking kid in sacrifice while it was yet tender and under the damme Pellican But this cannot be the sense for after seven dayes it was lawfull to take any thing from the damme and sacrifice it Exod. 22.30 And we reade that Samuel offered in sacrifice a sucking lambe 1 Sam. 8. Beside the flesh of kids when they are weaned are not so sweet and pleasant as before Simler 2. Some interpret this Law by that Levit. 22.28 that they should not kill the cow and ewe and the young both in one day and Deut. 22.6 that they should not take the dam with the young Theodoret. Vatab. But it is a divers thing to seeth the kid in the dammes milke and to seeth or kill the kid with the damme together Pelarg. Oleaster 3. Some doe understand this Law according to the letter that they should not indeed dresse and seeth a kid in the dammes milke and they give this reason because it seemeth to be a cruell thing si lac matris quod datum ei est pro nutrimento adhibeatur ad consumptionem if the milke of the damme which is given for nourishment should be used to waste and consume it Thomas Lyrâ—â—m Others adde this reason Prohibetur ritus Idololatrarum lixantium 〈◊〉 in laste matris The rite and fashion of Idolaters is forbidden which seeth the kid in the dammes milke Cajetane And the Hebrewes affirme that the Ismaelites had such an use to seeth kids in the dammes milke for more delicacie sake Simler The Gentiles also used to sacrifice a kid sod in the mothers milke to the 〈◊〉 of the fields that they might have plenty Tostat. And this is the speciall reason which they insist upon that follow this sense to take it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the words and letter because it is thrice repeated in the same phrase in this place and Exod. 34.26 and Deut. 14.21 Pelarg. Simler and Calvin seemeth to approve the same sense Contra. But against this exposition it may be thus objected 1. The word bashal here used signifieth as well to rost as seeth as Deut. 16.7 Thou shalt rost the paschall Lambe for it was
fashion thereof inscription and fastening 36. qu. How Aaron is said to beare their iniquities 37. qu. The mysticall signification of the golden plate 38. qu. Of the imbroidered coat the fashion and making thereof 39. qu. Of the high Priests miter 40. qu. Of the girdle of needle worke and imbroidered 41. qu. How the high Priests attire differed from the apparell of the inferiour Priests 42. qu. Whether Aaron did alwayes put on the common Priestly garments 43. qu. What it is to fill the hands of the Priests 44. qu. Of the fashion and use of the linnen breeches 45. qu. How this precept and charge concerning the linnen breeches agreeth with that law Exod. 23.26 46. qu. Of the mysticall application of the inferiour Priests garments Questions upon the nine and twentieth Chapter 1. QUest Why it pleased God to have the Priests thus consecrated 2. qu. Why the Calfe is said to bee the sonne of a bullocke 3. qu. Why a Bullocke two Rammes and other things were offered at Aarons consecration 4. qu. Why Aaron and the Priests were called to the doore of the Tabernacle 5. qu. Why Aaron and the rest are washed and how 6. qu. Of the Priestly apparell which Aaron put on and why the girdle is omitted 7. qu. How Aaron was anointed and with what 8. qu. How the ordinance of the Priesthood is said to be perpetuall 9. qu. The spirituall application of Aarons manner of consecration 10. qu. Why the Priests lay their hands upon the head of the beast 11. qu. Of the divers kinds of sacrifices and why some kinde of beasts were taken for sacrifice and not other 12. qu. Why the bloud was laid upon the hornes of the Altar 13. qu. What became of the bloud which was powred at the bottome of the Altar 14. qu. Why the fat was burned upon the Altar and how 15. qu. VVhy the flesh skinne and dung was burned without the host 16. qu. Of the mysticall application of the sacrifice of the bullocke with the rites thereof 17. qu. VVhy the sacrifice for sinne was offered first 18. qu. How the bloud of the burnt offering was bestowed upon the Altar 19. qu. Why the hornes of the Altar are not here touched with bloud 20. qu. Why the dung in the sinne offerings being an uncâ—eane thing was prescribed to be burned 21. qu. Why the burnt offering was so called and how it differed from other sacrifices 22. qu. VVhy the burnt offering is called a sweet savour 23. qu. Of the mysticall sense of the ramme of burnt offerings 24. qu. Of the third ramme why it is called the ramme of consecration 25. qu. Why the bloud was put upon the right eare thumbe and toe of Aaron 26. qu. How the bloud was sprinkled upon the Altar round about 27. qu. How the bloud and oyle was sprinkled upon their garments without spotting 28. qu. The mysticall signification of the ramme of consecration with the rites thereof 29. qu. How these things were put into the Priests hands and shaken to and fro 30. qu. Whether Moses were indeed a Priest 31. qu. Whether Aaron had the breast and shoulder of the ramme of consecration 32. qu. What difference there was betweene the shake offering and heave offering 33. qu. What is here understood by the heave offering 34. qu. Of the mysticall application of the shaking to and fro and of the breast and shoulder of the ramme given unto the Priests 35. qu. Of the consecrating of Aarons successor in his garments 36. qu. By whom the high Priests succeeding Aaron were consecrated 37. qu. Whether Eleazar was consecrated after the manner here prescribed 38. qu. What services the high Priest was bound to doe in the Sanctuarie 39. qu. Of other rites belonging to the ramme of consecration 40. qu. Whether all these rites were of the necessitie of the consecration 41. qu. Why the consecration of the Priests continued seven dayes 42. qu. Whether all the sacrifices the first day were iterated seven dayes together or the sacrifice for sinne onely 43. qu. To what end the sinne offering was offered every day of the seven 44. qu. How the Altar was cleansed and why 45. qu. How the Altar sanctified whatsoever touched it 46. qu. Of the dayly sacrifice with the rites thereof 47. qu. How much the Hin contained 48. qu. Of the spirituall application of the Altar and dayly sacrifice 49. qu. How the Lord appointed with the children of Israel 50. qu. What the Lord promiseth to sacrifice 51. qu. What is meant here by Gods glorie 52. qu. How the Lord is said here to sanctifie Aaron 53. qu. How the Lord is said to dwell among them Questions upon the thirtieth Chapter 1. QUest Why the narration of the making of the golden Altar is transposed 2. qu. Wherefore the Altar of incense had hornes comming out of it 3. qu. Wherein this Altar of incense differed from the other 4. qu. How the incense was burned upon the golden Altar 5. qu. Of the placing of the bars and how the Altar was carried 6. qu. Where the Altar of incense was placed 7. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by the golden Censer which the most holy place is said to have 8. qu. Why incense was commanded to be burned morning and evening 9. qu. Whether any of the lamps burned by day 10. qu. What things were inhibited to be offered upon the golden Altar 11. qu. Whether the high Priest entred more than once in a yeare upon any occasion into the most holy place 12. qu. How Aaron made reconciliation upon the hornes of the Altar 13. qu. The spirituall sense of the Altar of incense 14. qu. How this Altar of incense differed from Salomons 15. qu. Whether it were lawfull to number the people and wherein David offended 16. qu. Whether this collection of many were commanded onely at this time or were to continue 17. qu. VVhy this money was collected and to what end 18. qu. How much the sicle of the Sanctuarie and halfe sicle was 19. qu. Whether there were divers kinds of shekels 20. qu. Of the halfe shekel which Christ paid for tribute what it was and how it came to bee paid for tribute 21. qu. Why they were numbred onely from twentie yeares old 22. qu. Why the poore pay as much as the rich 23. qu. Whether all these things were declared to Moses at once 24. qu. Of the fashion of the brasen Laver. 25. qu. Of the use of this brasen Laver. 26. qu. Of the mysticall application of the Laver wherein the Priests washed 27. qu. The difference betweene Moses Laver and Salomons great Sea of brasse 28. qu. Of the spices that went toward the making of the oyntment 29. qu. Of the manner of making and compounding this holy oyntment 30. qu. Of the use of this oyntment in anointing the Tabernacle 31. qu. How all that touched the Tabernacle became holy 32. qu. When and how Aaron and his sons were anointed 33. qu. Who are understood here by the name