against Levi but not against Christ. QVEST. XX. Of the lifting up of the hand how diversly it is taken in Scripture Vers. 22. I Have lift up my hand c. The learned have observed divers significations of this phrase in Scripture 1. It betokeneth prayer generally 1 Tim. 2.8 Saint Paul would have men lift up pure hands c. 2. It signifieth speciall suit and request for helpe Lament 2.19 Lift up thy hands for the lives of the young children 3. It is a gesture expressing thankfulnesse Nehem. 8.6 Ezra praised the Lord c. and the people lift up their hands c. and worshipped 4. It is used when any thing is done with a willing mind and glad heart Psa. 119. I have lift up my hand to the commandements which I have loved 5. As also it is a token and signe of calling Isay 49.22 I have lâ—ft and stretched my hands to the Gentiles 6. It betokeneth helpe and deliverance Ezech. 20. 5. I lift up my hand upon the seed of Iacob and was knowne unto them in the land of Egypt 7. To lift up the hand is to rise against one to vex and oppresse him Iob. 31.22 If I have lift up my hand against the fatherlesse c. Perer. 8. They used also to lift up their hands in giving of voyces which the Greekes call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin 9. It was a gesture used in taking of an oath and therefore the Lord saith Num. 14.30 They shall not come into the land ever the which I lift up my hand to make them dwell in it This signification it hath here for Abraham before he went to battell had vowed unto God in his prayer as the Chalde interpret that if God would deliver the enemies into his hand he would not seeke to make himselfe rich thereby but give the praise to God QVEST. XXI Wherefore Abraham tooke an oath ABraham therefore tooke an oath swearing by the true God to professe his faith and religion that he onely worshipped the true God Perer. 2. That he might take occasion hereby to reprove the superstitious use of the King of Sodome in swearing by their Idols and instruct him concerning the worship of the true God Calvin 3. As also that they might know that Abraham did not this suddenly or of vaine-glory but of a religious minde having bound himselfe by an oath Muscul. 4. That by this oath as with a shield Abraham might be preserved from the baits of covetousnesse wherewith the King of Sodome might have tempted him if he had not beene firme Calvin QVEST. XXII Why Abraham refuseth to take ought of the King of Sodome Vers. 23. I Will not take of all that is thine so much as a threed or a shooe latchet 1. Abraham refuseth not to take of those things which belonged to the foure Kings whom he had conquered which now were his by reason of his just victory but not of any thing which was the Kings of Sodome 2. Which Abraham calleth his not as Ambrose thinketh because the spoyles of the enemie belong to the King for he was not Abrahams King but for that they had beene before appertaining to the King 3. Though Abraham might have challenged them by the right of his victory yet he would not take so much as a threed 1. Least he might have beene thought for his owne lucre to have waged that battell 2. He would doe justice to restore the goods to the first owners 3. That the heathen King should have no advantage to thinke Abraham bound unto him Neither would Abraham that any should have the honour and praise of enriching him but onely God of whose blessing hee onely depended Pererius 4. Abraham refused not the gifts which Pharao bestowed upon him Gen. 12.8.16 but he will take nothing of the King of Sodome the reasons may be yeelded to be these 1. There the King gave of his liberality and Abraham could not refuse without suspition here nothing was given but recovered in battell 2. There the King gave of his owne but these goods belonged to all the Sodomites Mercer 3. By that meanes it pleased God that Abraham should be then enriched but Abraham was now rich enough he needed no such helps 4. Here Abraham might have beene thought if he had taken any thing to himselfe of a covetous minde to have pursued the enemies and so God should not have had the honour of the victorie but here was no such feare 5. The King of Sodome and his people were ordained for a greater destruction and therefore God would not that Abraham should take any thing which was accursed But Pharao received mercy of God thus the case was much different betweene the gifts of the one and the other 6. Abraham excepteth those things which the young men had eaten making no mention of the tithe which he had given before because that was taken not out of the King of Sodomes substance but his owne neither doth he prejudice the other three by his example but that they notwithstanding might take their parts Muscul. 4. Places of doctrine 1. Doct. Of the custome of paying of tithes Vers. 10. GIve him tithe c. We see how ancient this custome of paying tithe to the Priests and Ministers is It was practised before the Law as appeareth here by the example of Abraham and the vow of Iacob Genes 28. yea such was the equity of it that from the Hebrewes the Gentiles borrowed that use the Romans paid tithes of their goods to Hercules Plinie writeth that the Arabians pay tithe of their incense to their God Sabis and that it is not lawfull before that be done to buy or sell. Xenophon also sheweth that they which had gotten the victory did use to pay tithes to their Gods of the spoile of their enemie Perer. 2. Doct. Of the lawfulnesse of an Oath Vers. 21· I Have lift up my hand c. In that Abraham doubted not to take an oath wee see the lawfulnesse thereof that it is not denied unto a Christian to sweare when he is lawfully called thereunto contrary to the phantasticall doctrine of the Anabaptists that simply condemne the use of an oath but Moses saith Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and sweare by his name Deut. 6.13 Muscul. 3. Doct. God onely the possessor and true owner of the earth Vers. 22. POssessor of heaven and earth c. Philo noteth hereupon that no mortall man is properly possessor or true Lord of the earth But that both the heaven and earth are the Lords possession and we are but tenants at the Lords pleasure as the Lord himselfe saith The land shall not be sold to be cut off for the land is mine and ye are but sojourners and strangers with me Levit. 29.23 Whereupon he enforceth Ius possessionis omnium rerum ad Deum pertinere usum solum ad creaturam that the right of possession of all things belongeth to God the use onely to the creature 5. Places of
the owner is to die when his ox goareth any to death 66. qu. VVhether the owner might redeeme his life with money 67. qu. VVhat servants this law meaneth Hebrewes or strangers 68. qu. VVhy a certaine summe of money is set for all servants 69. qu. VVhat kinde of welles this law meaneth where and by whom digged 70. qu. How the live and dead ox are to be divided where they were not of equall value Questions upon the two and twentieth Chapter 1. QUest Of the divers kinds of theft 2. qu. VVhy five oxen are restored for one and for a stollen sheepe but foure 3. qu. Of the divers punishment of theft and whether it may be capitall 4. qu. VVhy the theefe breaking up might be killed 5. qu. How it is made lawfull for a private man to kill a theefe 6. qu. After what manner the theefe was to be sold. 7. qu. VVhy the theefe is onely punished double with whom the thing stollen is found 8. qu. How man is to make recompence of the best of his ground 9. qu. Of the breaking out of fire and the damages thereby 10. qu. VVhy the keeper of things in trust is not to make good that which is lost 11. qu. How the fraud in the keeper of trust was to be found out and punished 12. qu. VVhat is to be done with things that are found 13. qu. How this law of committing things to trust differeâ—h from the former 14. qu. How the cause of theft differeth from other casualties in matters of trust 15. qu. VVhether it were reasonable that the matter should be put upon the parties oath 16. qu. VVhat was to bee done if the thing kept in trust were devoured of some wilde beast 17. qu. Of the law of borrowing and lending when the thing lent is to be made good when not 18. q. Why such a strait law is made for the borrower 19. qu. Why the hirer is not to make good the thing hired as when it is borrowed 20. qu. Whether the fornicator by this law is sufficiently punished 21. qu. Why the woman committing fornication bee not as well punished by the law 22. qu. What kinde of dowrie this law speaketh of 23. qu. How this law differeth from that Deut. 22.29 24. qu. What was to be done if the fornicator were not sufficient to pay the dowrie 25. qu. What if the fornicator refused to take the maid to wife 26. qu. Whether this law were generall without any exception 27. qu. How farre this positive law against fornication doth binde Christians now 28. qu. Why the law doth require the consent of the father to such mariages 29. qu. Why next to the law of fornication followeth the law against witchcraft 30. qu. What kinde of witchcraft is here understood 31. qu. Whether love may be procured by sorcerie 32. qu. Whether witches can indeed effect any thing and whether they are worthie to bee punished by death 33. qu. Of the odious sinne of bestiall and unnaturall lust 34. qu. The reasons why men are given over to unnaturall lust 35. qu. What is meant by sacrificing to other gods 36. qu. Whether idolatrie now is to bee punished by death 37. qu. Why idolatrie is judged worthie of death 38. qu. Of kindnesse how to be shewed toward strangers and why 39. qu. Why widowes and Orphanes are not to be oppressed 40. qu. How and by what meanes prayers are made effectuall 41. qu. Why usurie is called biting 42. qu. What usurie is 43. qu. Of divers kinds of usuries 44. qu. That usurie is simplie unlawfull 45. qu. Certaine contracts found to be usurie not commonly so taken 46. qu. Whether all increase by the lone of money be unlawfull 48. qu. Whether it were lawfull for the Iewes to take usurie of the Gentiles 49. qu. What garment must bee restored before the Sun set which was taken to pledge and why 50. qu. Who are understood here by gods and why 51. qu. VVhy the Magistrate is not to be reviled and with what limitation this law is to be understood 52. qu. VVhether S. Paul transgressed this law Act. 23. when hee called the high Priest painted wall and whether indeed he did it of ignorance 53. qu. VVhat is understood here by abundance of liquor 54. qu. Of the difference of first fruits and tithes 55. qu. Of the divers kinds of tithe 56. qu. Reasons why tithes ought to be payed 57. qu. VVhether this law bee understood of the redemption of the first borne or of their consecration to Gods service 58. qu. VVhy the first borne of cattell were not to bee offered before the eighth day 59. qu. Of the meaning of this law whether it were mysticall morall or historicall 60. qu. VVhy they are forbidden to eat flesh torne of beasts 61. qu. Of the use and signification of this law Questions upon the three and twentieth Chapter 1. QUest Of raysing or reporting false tales 2. qu. What it is to put to the hand to be a false witnesse 3. qu. How great a sin it is to be a false witnesse 4. qu. VVhether in this law we are to understand the mightie or the many 5. qu. How the poore is not to be esteemed in judgement 6. qu. How person are accepted in judgement and how far the poore may be respected 7. qu. VVhy mercie is to bee shewed toward the enemies oxe and asse 8. qu. VVhether it is to bee read Thou shalt helpe him or lay it aside with him 9. qu. How the poore mans cause is perverted in judgement 10. qu. Against lying in judgement and how it may be committed 11. qu. VVho are meant here by the just and innocent 12. qu. In what sense God is said not to justifie the wicked 13. qu. VVhether a Iudge ought alwayes to follow the evidence when he himselfe knoweth the contrarie 14. qu. A Iudge is not bound of his knowledge to condemne a man not found guiltie in publike judgement 15. qu. VVhat a dangerous thing it is for a Iudge to take gifts 16. qu. VVhether all kinde of gifts are unlawfull 17. qu. VVhy strangers are not to bee oppressed in judgement 18. qu. Of the divers festivals of the Hebrewes 19. qu. VVhy the land was to rest the seventh yeare 20. qu. What the poore lived upon in the seventh yeare 21. qu. VVhether the seventh yeare were generally neglected in Israel 490. yeares together as Tostatus thinketh 22. qu. Why the law of the Sabbath is so oft repeated 23. qu. VVhat manner of mention of strange gods is here forbidden 24. qu. VVhy it is forbidden to sweare by the name of strange gods 25. qu. Whether a Christian may compell a Iew to sweare by his Thorah which containeth five books of Moses 26. qu. VVhether a Iew may be urged to sweare by the name of Christ. 27. qu. VVhether a Saracon may be urged to sweare upon the Gospell or in the name of Christ. 28. qu. VVhether a Christian may sweare upon the the Iewes Thorah 29. qu. That it is
be bound if he used deceit or were in a manifest fault otherwise not as si fecisset animal illud nimis laborare if he caused the beast which was borrowed to be over laboured Lyran. But in the case of borrowing he is bound not only to make restitution where any thing is lost by his fraud and wilfull default sed tenetur de levissima culpa but for every small fault oversight or negligence is he bound to make satisfaction Tostat. qu. 8. QUEST XX. Whether the fornicator by this Law be sufficiently punished Vers. 16. IF a man entise a maid not betrâ—thed c. 1. This Law enjoyning only unto the fornicator marriage with the virgin corrupted if her father consent may seeme to be too easie and gentle But here it must be considered that in these civill Lawes the punishment is not alwayes answerable to the sin for even the sinne of fornication is one of those which without Gods mercy excludeth out of the kingdome of heaven but the intendment of this Law is to bridle such inordinate lusts and to restraine them that they still increase not Simler 2. And beside it must be considered multa pro ruditate populitâ—lerare that many things in that Common-wealth were tolerated because of the rudenesse of the people Gallas 3. Although the offender by this meanes doe satisfie the politicke Law in marrying the virgin by him corrupted yet coram Deo c. in the presence of God he is not cleared from this offence in making amends by marriage and giving her a dowry Osiander But repentance beside is necessary for the expiation of this sinne 4. The speciall scope of this Law is to provide for the virgin thus abused that shee being made by this meanes unapt for any marriage with another should be taken to be his wife that had done her this wrong 5. The like Law there was among the Athenians that he which defiled a maid should take her to be his wife But among the Romans there was a more severe Law that he which had committed fornication if he were of good sort should be punished in the losse of halfe his goods if of base condition he should be banished Simler 6. This Law is onely concerning virgins not betrothed for to lye with them which were espoused to another was death by Moses Law Deut. 22.23 QUEST XXI Why the women committing fornication be not as well punished by the Law AGaine this Law may seeme to be defective as in laying so easie a punishment upon the man so imposing none at all upon the woman 1. But the reasons thereof may be these the woman might be entised and deceived upon hope of marriage and it was sufficient punishment unto her the losse of her virginity and beside being under her fathers power and so having nothing of her owne shee could not be charged to pay any summe of money as the man is Simler 2. Yet the high Priests daughter if shee played the whore in her fathers house was to be burned because shee had dishonoured her fathers house Levit. 21.9 therefore she is to be excepted out of this Law Tostat. quaest 9. 3. The word patah here used signifieth to decline or turne so that whether he entise the maid blanditiis vel mendaciis by faire promises or by lying words whether he promised her marriage or not he is bound by this Law to take her to wife Oleaster 4. And as this Law is meant for the one party of virgins not betrothed so is it intended on the other part that he must be a single man that is by this Law enjoyned to marry her Iun. If he were married it seemeth he was rather to endow her than marry her because the father would not willingly consent to give his daughter to one that was married already 5. The word shacab signifieth to lye or sleepe non est peccatum dormire cum puella it is no sinne saith Tostatus only to sleepe with a maid if no other thing be committed though he follow the Latine text reading and sleepe with her it is better therefore to read lie with her Iun. Vatab. QUEST XXII What kinde of dowry this Law speaketh of HE shall endow her There is difference betweene Dos the dowry and donatiâ— propter nuptias the marriage gift or joynture this is not meant of the joynture which the man should make his wife but of the dowry which the father used to give in marriage with his daughter as may appeare by these reasons 1. The endowing of the wife is inflicted hâ—re as a punishment the man for his fault is enjoyned to doe that which otherwise he was not bound to doe but the husband alwayes bestowed upon his wife a marriage gift therefore this Law meaneth he shall beare also her dowry which his wife should bring with her or her friends give with her 2. If it were understood of the joynture or marriage gift it had beene superfluous to say he shall endow her and take her to wife for in taking her to wife the husband was of ordinary course to bestow on her a marriage gift or joynture 3. If he have her not to wife her father not consenting yet he was to pay her dowry vers 17. that is not a joynture or marriage gift but that portion which her friends used to give with her Tostat. qu. 9. QUEST XXIII How this Law differeth from that Deut. 22.29 SOme make this Law all one with that Deut. 22.29 where the man which defiled a maid is enjoyned to pay 50. sicles to her father which R. Salomon thinketh to be the certaine dowry of a virgin and so they say that there is duplex dos una qua datur uxori alia quae datur patri a double dowry one which is given unto the wife the other unto her father Lyran. Simler Gallas Lippom. But these two appeare to be divers Lawes 1. This case is put when a man entiseth a maid and she consenteth and is willing therewith but there the Law speaketh of the violent taking of a maid Iun. Tostat. 2. There the summe of 50. sicles is paid to the father for the wrong done unto his daughter it is not given in the name of a dowry for there could not be any certaine rate or summe of money appointed for every maids dowry some might give 1000. sicles with their daughter others not thirty therefore that summe of 50. sicles is not prescribed here but it is said in generall He shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins that is according to their state and condition as dowries used to be given with virgins and maids of like parentage calling and birth for a poore maid had not so great a dowry as one of noble stocke and high degree 3. The maid by violence first defiled and then taken to wife by that Law could never be put away Deut. 22.30 but no such thing is mentioned here he that taketh a maid to wife whom with her owne consent
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
of faith Rom. 4.11 as also analogicall in representing the Sacrament of Baptisme that should come in the place thereof So the Apostle collecteth In whom ye are circumcised with circumcision not made with hands c. in that ye are buried with him through baptisme Coloss. 2.11 12. he maketh circumcision and baptisme one to answer another QVEST. V. How circumcision is said to be eternall Vers. 13. MY covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant c. It is called everlasting not because simply this signe was to endure for ever as some thinke that for this cause circumcision yet remaineth among the Jewes who are now usurpers of this ceremonie which by right is extinguished in Christ. But it is said to be eternall 1. conditionally and according to the nature of the subject that so long as the covenant indured whereof it was a signe so long the signe should remaine but the first covenant or testament being determined in Christ the date also of the signe is expired 2. It is eternall in respect of that which it signified which is indeed eternall the grace of God in Christ Calvin 3. It may be said to be eternall in respect of the perpetuall supply thereof namely baptisme which shall continue while the Church hath a being on earth Mercer QVEST. VI. Why circumcision was to determine in Christ. NOw further whereas the Jewes calumniate the Christians because they have abrogated circumcision it shall appeare by these reasons that at the comming of Christ circumcision in right was to cease 1. Chrysostome yeeldeth this reason that circumcision being given to the Israelites as a marke of separation and distinction from other Nations this marke was no longer to bee in use than while such separation continued But now in Christ as the Apostle saith There is neither Iew nor Grecian Galat. 2.28 the wall of partition is taken away therefore the badge of this separation should likewise be removed 2. The signe was to endure no longer than the covenant whereof it was a signe but the covenant is abrogated as the Apostle alleageth out of the Prophet Behold the dayes will come saith the Lord that I wil make with the house of Israel a new testament c. Heb. 8. vers 8. and so he concludeth vers 13. In that hee saith a new testament he hath abrogated the old 3. The Apostle thus reasoneth if the Priesthood be changed of necessity then must be a change of the Law Heb. 7.12 If all the ceremonies of the Law at the change of the Priesthood must be altered then circumcision also among the rest for if circumcision remained the whole Law should still be in force Galat. 5.3 He that is circumcised is bound to keepe the whole Law 4. The externall circumcision of the flesh was a type of the internall circumcision of the heart wrought in us by Christ the bodie now being come the spirituall circumcision the shadow that is the carnall should cease as Ambrose saith oportuit circumcisione ex parte fieri ante ejus adventum qui totum hominem circumcidere post cessare It was meet that circumcision in part should be kept before he came which should circumcise the whole man and then to cease Epist. 77. 5. Lastly the same Ambrose giveth this reason Donec pratium pro omnib hominib dominici sanguinis effusione solveretur opus fuit singulorum sanguine c. till the price in shedding of Christs bloud was payed for all men it was fit that every mans bloud should be shed to fulfill the rite and custome of the Law but after Christ had suffered there was no more need of circumcision in every mans bloud Cum in Christi sanguine circumcisio universorum celebrata sit When in Christs bloud the circumcision of all men once for all was celebrated QVEST. VII Why the fore-skinne was commanded to be circumcised Vers. 11. YE shall circumcise the fore-skinne of your flesh 1. Two speciall reasons may be alleaged why that part which was the instrument of generation was commanded to be circumcised first because the promise was made to Abraham that in his seed all Nations should be blessed the Messiah was promised to come out of Abrahams loynes Calvin Secondly the signe was there placed to shew the corruption and contagion of mans nature that there the remedy should be ministred where the disease reigned Muscul. Ambrose addeth a third reason Vt iiâ— quâ— ignobiliora membra putarentur majorem honestaâ—em circundarent That upon those parts which seemed more base or vile more comelinesse should be put on 2. Some might be borne circumcised by nature as the Hebrewes doe affirme of Sem that hee was so borne but of this assertion there is no ground the other is naturall yet but rare 3. Likewise when the foreskinne was circumcised once it might by art be drawne over againe as Epiphanius collecteth out of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.18 If any man be called being circumcised let him not gather uncircumcision and mention is made of some 1 Maccab. 1.16 that renounced circumcision and made themselves uncircumcised It was also an usuall thing as Epiphanius witnesseth for the Samaritans to circumcise againe those that came from the Jewes and Jewes such as came from the Samaritans this practice of drawing againe the fore-skinne that was circumcised is thought by Epiphanius to have beene invented by Esau to deny his profession and to raze out his circumcision ex Pererie QVEST. VIII Why circumcision was tyed to the eighth day Vers. 12. EVery man childe of eight dayes old c. Why circumcision was tyed to the eighth day these reasons are yeelded 1. Chrysostome alleageth these two because that circumcision in infants their bodies being not yet come to the growth might be better endured and with lesse danger as also to shew that the circumcision of the body did not profit the soule seeing infants had no understanding of that which was done but was a signe onely of grace hom 39. Genes 2. Others doe make a mystery of it referring this eighth day to the resurrection of Christ who rose upon the eighth day by whom we have circumcision sic Augustine lib. 16. de Civit. Dei cap. 26. 3. But the best reason is this because the infant before the eighth day was not of sufficient strength to endure that paine and therefore it was provided that young cattell should be seven dayes with the damme before they were offered Levit. 22.27 because they were yet but tender And againe it was not fit to deferre circumcision longer because the body of the infant waxing stronger should be put to the more paine Perer. Calvin 4. Circumcision was not upon any occasion then to be ministred before the eighth day but infants dying without circumcision might have inwardly supplyed that which was outwardly wanting by the grace of election and force of Gods covenant made to the faithfull and their seed 5. Yet necessity so urging circumcision might
for the transgression◠against both the morall and ceremoniall lawes So that these Judicials were the very bond of the other lawes and kept the people in order and obedience Vrsinus Catech. 2. These lawes doe thus differ 1. The Morall are generall grounded upon the law of nature so are not the other 2. They are perpetuall to endure for ever so doe not the other 3. The Morals require both externall and internall obedience the other onely externall The Morall were the principall and other lawes were to give place unto them and they were the end unto the which the other tended Vrsin 3. Yet these three the Morall Judiciall and Ceremoniall are not severally but joyntly handled by Moses so that among the Morals there are found some Ceremonials and among the Judicials both Morall and Ceremoniall lawes Lyran. And the Moral law contained in the ten Commandements was delivered by the Lords owne voice to the people the rest they received by Moses from God Tostat. quest 1. QUEST III. Of the validity of the lawes Morall Ceremoniall Iudiciall which are abrogated which are not COncerning the validity of these lawes 1. The Ceremonials are utterly abolished so that there is now no place for them under the Gospell neither can they be revived without derogation to the Gospell of Christ as the Apostle saith If yee be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Galath 5.2 for when the body is come the shadowes must be abolished but the ceremonies were shadowes the body is Christ Coloss. 2.17 Their Temple signified the Church of God their holy place heaven their sacrifices the passion of Christ their expiations the remission of sinnes these things then being fully exhibited and fulfilled in Christ have now no more place in the Church Ferus Againe the ceremonies served only for that carnall people which were as children kept in bondage under the elements and rudiments of the world Galath 4.3 But now we are no longer under tutors and governours the time appointed of the Father being expired but are set free and redeemed by Christ. Ferus Another reason of the abolishing of them is in respect of that people to whom they were prescribed as a marke and cognizance to discerne them from all other nations but now this distinction being taken away and the wall of partition being broken downe both Jew and Gentile being made all one in Christ that also is abolished which discerned them from other people for the causes being changed for the which the law was made there must needs follow also an alteration of the law it selfe Vrsin 2. The Judicials are neither abolished nor yet with such necessity injoyned the equity of them bindeth but not the like strict severity as is shewed before at large in the generall questions prefixed before the first chapter whither I referre the Reader 3. The Morall law remaineth full in force still and is not abrogated Quoad obedientiam in respect of obedience which thereunto is still required now under the Gospell Sed quoad maledictionem but in respect of the curse and malediction which Christ hath taken away So that it is most true which our blessed Saviour saith he came not to dissolve the law but to fulfill it Matth. 5. Hee hath fulfilled it 1. In his owne person in keeping it 2. In paying the punishment for us which was due by the law to the transgressors thereof 3. In enabling us by his grace to walke in obedience to the law Vrsin QUEST IV. Of the difference betweene the Morall and Evangelicall law BUt though the Morall law bee now in force and bind us to obedience as well as it did the Jewes yet there is great difference betweene the law and the Gospell 1. In the knowledge and manifestation thereof for to the Morall law wee have some direction by the light of nature but the knowledge of faith in Christ by the Gospell is revealed by grace 2. The law teacheth what we should be by faith and grace in Christ we are made that which the law prescribeth and the Gospell effecteth in us 3. The conditions are unlike the law tieth the promise of eternall life to the condition of fulfilling the law in our selves the Gospell to the condition of faith apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ. 4. The effects are divers the law worketh terrour the Gospell peace and comfort Vrsin The law revealeth sinne the Gospell giveth remission of sinnes Ferus So that the one is lex timoris the law of feare the other is lex amoris the law of love which also hath a threefold difference yet further 1. Lex timoris facit observantes servos the law of feare maketh the observers thereof servile but the law of love maketh them free 2. The law of feare is not willingly kept but by constraint the law of love voluntariò observatur is willingly observed and kept 3. The one is hard and heavy the other easie and light Tom. opuscul 8. QUEST V. Of the manifold use of the law in the fourefold state of man TOuching the use of the Morall law it is to be considered according to these foure states of man as he was in his creation and state of innocency in his corrupt and decayed nature as hee is restored by grace and as he shall be in the state of glorification 1. Man in his innocency received two benefits by the knowledge of the law which was graft in him by creation that thereby hee was made conformable to the image of God and so directed that he should not have swarved from the will of the Creator and beside he thereby had assurance so long as he walked in obedience of certaine eternity never to have tasted of death corruption or mutability in his state for he that keepeth the law shall live thereby Vrsin 2. In mans corrupt state the law serveth both to restraine the evill and therefore the Apostle saith that the law is not given to a righteous man but to the lawlesse and disobedient 1. Tim. 1.9 as also to discover unto them their sinnes for by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne and therefore the Apostle saith Without the law sinne is dead Rom. 7.9 that is it is not knowne to be sinne Ferus 3. In man regenerate the law is a rule of righteousnesse and a lanterne to their feet as David saith 2. It teacheth the true knowledge of God 3. It assureth a man that walketh therein of his election 2. Pet. 1.10 If ye doe these things yee shall never fall 4. It sheweth what benefit wee have received by Christ the renuing of that image wherein man was first created Coloss. 3.10 5. In the state of glorification the law shall have that use which it had before mans fall to shew the conformity in those glorified creatures in their holy obedience with the blessed will of their glorious Creator Vrsin QUEST VI. Why it pleased God now and not before to give his written law to the world IT followeth now to bee
sin neither is it a sinfull act but yet there may bee some blemish and imperfection in the manner seeing our best actions are stained as the Prophet saith All our righteousnesse is 〈◊〉 filthie clouts Isai. 64.4 3. If veniall sin be taken for a small offence wee denie not but that such blemishes are found in matrimoniall duties which are tolerated and covered in mariage according to that excellent saying of Augustine Libidinis voluptas non propter nuptias cadit in culpam sed propter nuptias accipit veniam The pleasure of lusts doth not take blame because of mariage but for mariage sake doth receive pardon Lib. 1. de concupis cap. 15. 4. But mortall or deadly sin in mariage there is none that is in his sense haynous and grievous for if his meaning be that the fleshly desire would extend it selfe to another that is coveteth strange flesh this is not incident unto any act of mariage but is a violating of mariage by adulterous and unchaste thoughts And if there could be any sâ—ch mortall and deadly sin in the duties of mariage what is become of that saying of the Apostle concerning the giving in mariage Hee sinneth not 1 Cor. 7.36 which also may bee understood of the duties of mariage Augustine hath this worthie saying Sicut bono uti malè malum est ita maleâ—ti bene bonum est benè utitur bono continentiam dedicans Deo bono utitur malè continentiam dedicons idolo malo utitur male concupiscentiam relaxans adulteriâ— bene utitur malo concupiscentiam restringâ—â—s connubio As it is evill to use a good thing evill so it is good to use an evill thing well as hee useth a good thing well that dedicateth his continencie unto God hee useth a good thing evill that dedicateth his continencie to an Idoll hee useth an evill thing evill that doth loose the reines of his concupiscence to adulterie he useth an evill thing evill who restraineth his concupiscence to matrimonie August cont Pelag. 1.19 If he doe an evill thing well that limiteth and keepeth his concupiscence within the bounds of mariage hee then cannot sinne mortally V. Confut. Against Tostatus that would not have simple fornication punished by humane lawes AGainst Tostatus here also worthily exception is taken who justifieth this defect and imperfection in humane lawes he meaneth such as are practised among the Romanists which doe not punish simple fornication these are his words Injustissima civilis lex esset qua â—eretrices tolleret That should be a most unjust Civill law which should take away strumpets and punish simple fornication c. Wee will see and examine his reasons 1. Civill lawes are only to restraine such sins whereby justice is violated and injurie done unto another but in fornication there is no act of injustice Non est ibi aliqua persona cui inferatur injuria There is no person there to whom any injurie can bee done Contra. There is a manifold wrong committed in single fornication 1. They offer wrong and dishonour unto Christ in making the members of Christ the members of an harlot 1 Cor. 6.15 2. They injurie themselves in sinning against their owne bodies in defiling and polluting them ibid. vers 18. 3. They doe wrong unto their posteritie bringing upon them the shame of bastardie making them illegitimate and disenabling them to inherit 2. If humane lawes should punish fornication it would give occasion unto adulterie incest Sodomitrie seeing the most in a common-wealth are weake and imperfect and if they were restrained from this smaller vice they would fall into greater enormitieâ— Contra. 1. As though God hath not appointed a remedie against fornication and all other uncleannesse by lawfull matrimonie shall men make themselves wiser than God and seeke to cure one evill by another 2. And thus the divine order is perverted among the Romanists for they restraine mariage and give way unto fornication and therefore it is no marvell if among them such unnaturall lusts doe reigne Bernard well sheweth the reason thereof Tolle de Ecclesia honorabile conjugâ—um c. Take away from the Church honorable matrimonie he saith not take away harlots and brothel houses as Tostatus doth shal ye not replenish it with incestuous persons with concubinaries Sodomiticall vices c. supeâ— Cant. serm 66. 3. Humane lawes are not to forbid all sinnes because Homo legem ponens non potest dare gratiam praeservativam c. because man making a law cannot give preseruing grace to keepe it and this was the cause why Lex Mosis non prohibâ—bat omnia vitia Moses law did not forbid all vices because therein was no grace given or helpe ministred to avoid them therefore some things were permitted among them as to take usurie of the Gentiles to give a bill of divorcement and such like So Tostatus quaest 23. Contra. 1. By this reason humane lawes should forbid no sins because Gods word not mans law giveth grace to abstaine from any sin 2. Neither is there any sin forbidden in the new Testament against the morall law which is not prohibited in the old as it may appeare by our blessed Saviours interpretation of the law Mat. 5. wherein he giveth no new law but only expoundeth the old 3. Though Moses law gave no grace to keepe it yet because it was a Schoolemaster to bring us unto Christ Gal. 3.19 it was fit it should be a perfect law and containe a strict rule of all righteousnesse that men the rather should bee driven unto Christ seeing themselves to come so farre short 4. The toleration of some things among the Israelites for their hardnesse of heart sheweth not a defect in the law but an imperfection in them that could not bee subject to the perfect rule of the law 5. And concerning the punishment of fornication it was not omitted in Moses law for although fornication with one were recompenced with marriage and paying of the dowrie Deut. 22.24 yet if a daughter in Israel did play the whore she was stoned to death ibid. vers 21. And seeing the law saith There shall not bee a whore of the daughters of Israel Deut. 23.17 how dare any defend the tolerating and suffering of whores in a Christian Common-wealth 4. Morall observations 1. Obser. Against shamelesse adulterers that thrust themselves into the Congregation of the Lords people THou shalt not commit adulterie This sin being so haynous in the sight of God whereby both the ordinance of God is perverted and matrimoniall faith mutually given violated and the Temples of the holy Ghost defiled hereby their impudencie unshamefastnesse and profanenesse is evident that being guiltie of this sin dare presume to come into the Lords house to offer themselves to heare the Word to receive the Sacraments or communicate in any other exercise of religion against whom the Prophet thus enveigheth Will you steale murther commit adulterie c. and come and stand before me in this house whereupon my name is called and
partly figurative of things to come and significative of some spirituall thing partly they had some other politick end and use which not in respect of the figure and type but in some other regard may upon a new institution be observed under the Gospell as the shew-bread or face-bread as it was a figure of Christ is now no more used but yet bread by Christs institution is still retained in the Eucharist as representative of the body of Christ. So they under the Law used washing with water to signifie the inward cleansing and now also in the new Testament upon a new ordinance it is used as the outward element in Baptisme So the observation of the Sabbath the paying of tithes Churches garments Church-musicke and the like were partly ceremoniall partly morall belonging to the service of God to the maintenance of Ministers to externall decencie and comelinesse in which respect though the ceremoniall use be ceased they may be retained still all things being done without offence and to edification according to the Apostles rule 4. But here I cannot let passe untouched an unsound assertion of Lyranus to whom consenteth Lippoman that thurificatio quae de ceremonialibus erat in nova lege remanet that censing and offering of incense being one of the ceremonials of the old Law yet remaineth in the new because it signified nothing to come but only shewed the devotion of the people in the worship of God which is greater in the new Testament than in the old Contra. 1. The offering of incense was a necessarie appertinance to the externall sacrifices of the Law it did continually wait and attend upon them and as the sacrifices did prefigure the holy sacrifice of attonement and passion of our blessed Saviour upon the crosse so the incense did betoken the sweet savour of that sacrifice and the acceptance thereof with Gold as Saint Paul sheweth that Christ hath given himselfe for us an offering and a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God Ephes. 5.2 Beside the oblation of incense did shadow forth the mediation of Christ in offering up the prayers of the Saints as Revel 8.3 Much odors were given to the Angel that had the golden censer to offer with the prayers of the Saints and hereunto alludeth the Prophet David when he saith Let my prayer be directed in thy sight as incense Psal. 141.2 It is evident then that the incense of the old Law was figurative and significative of things to come 2. And true it is that the inward and spirituall devotion is more and greater in the new Testament than it was in the old but not the externall for they had more outward ceremonies and rites prescribed as signes of their devotion than are now required under the Gospell for now they that worship God must worship him in spirit and truth Ioh. 4.24 QUEST IV. How farre the Iudicials are now to be retained FUrther concerning the Judicials of Moses 1. They doe much differ in respect of their observation from the Ceremonials for these are so abrogated as that now to observe the figures and types of the old Testament were great impiety for all such things were observed then vel expresè vel tacitè sub protestatione Messiae futuri c. either expresly or closely under protestation of the Messiah to come now therefore to observe them were to protest Christum nondum venisse that Christ were not yet come But it is not so with the Judicials for they being conclusions and rules of justice grounded upon the Law of nature and first given for the conservation of the peace and politike state of that Common-wealth and not prescribed for any signification or prefiguring of things to come they may now be so farre forth observed as they are found fitting and agreeable unto the state and condition of the people Sic fere Tostat. Lippom. 2. Two wayes is a precept said to be figurale figurative◠one way when it is principally instituted to figure somewhat such were the ceremoniall precepts another ex consequenti by a certaine consequent and so are the Judicials after a sort figurative because they belonged unto that people cujus status erat figuralis whose state was figurative Sic Thom. Lippom. To bee figurative in this sense letteth not but that the Judicials may be retained now seeing they were not appointed or ordained to prefigure any thing as the Ceremonials were 3. But here two strange positions come to be examined the one is of Lippoman That to observe the Judicials tanquam ex lege veteri obligatoria esset mortiferum as binding by force of the old Law were a deadly sinne Tostatus also saith We receive the judiciall precepts given of God tanquam dicta sapientis viri c. as the sayings of some wise man not as of a lawgiver binding us to the observation thereof like as the Romans borrowed their Lawes of the wise Grecians Tostat. qu. 1. Contra. 1. The old Law in the constituting of the Judicials was grounded upon the Law of equity which rule of equity it is no sinne to follow now therefore it is no sinne to follow the rules of the old law as they are grounded upon equity and justice nay therein to depart from them were rather transgression 2. S. Iames saith chap. 4.12 There is one Lawgiver which is able to save and destroy therefore to whom doth it rather belong to give direction for what offences mans life is to be saved and other punishment to be afflicted and for what his life is to bee taken away than unto that perfit and soveraigne Lawgiver who is the author and giver of life and at whose will and pleasure only mans life is taken away To say therefore that the Judicials appointed by God are to be observed now only as the sayings of a wise man not as of a Lawgiver is both to derogate from Gods authority who is the only sufficient Lawgiver and from the sufficiencie of his law which is more perfect than any humane constitutions whatsoever in making these Judicials but equall unto the sayings of other wise men But this question hath beene already handled at large before in the generall questions in chap. 1. Exod. QUEST V. Why these Lawes are called judgements THese are the judgements 1. He saith not Dei judicia sed absolut◠judicia the judgements of God but absolutely judgements for he which observed these was not yet just before God though hee were before men Lippoman 2. This word judgement in the singular signifieth not as judgements in the plurall for judgement in the singular for the most part signifieth condemnation but in the plurall it signifieth tam re◠vindictam quà m innocentis defensionem as well the revenge and punishment of the guilty as the defence of the innocent Rupertus 3. This word judgement is taken three wayes first it signifieth the act of the judgement and understanding which determineth what is meet and convenient to be done and
be servants one unto another For the deciding of this doubt there is a threefold kinde of liberty to be considered a naturall liberty civill and spirituall 1. The naturall liberty I call that wherein Adam was created being subdued to no bondage neither spirituall of sinne nor corporall in any outward subjection to any creature but as he had a freedome of will and was made Lord of his affections within that he needed not to have sinned unlesse he would himselfe so he had the dominion of the creatures given unto him This originall liberty of nature considered servitude and bondage was brought in as a punishment of sinne and so is not simply and of it selfe agreeable to the Law of nature 2. But now since Adams fall there is another kinde of civill liberty and civill servitude opposite unto it Civill liberty is defined to be a naturall faculty for every man to doe as himselfe liketh nisi si quis aut 〈◊〉 aut jure prohibetur unlesse one be hinâ—â—â—d by force or in right for that is no true liberty for a man against right to doe what him liâ—teth serâ—itude contrariwise deâ—â—eth unto a man power vivend◠〈…〉 to live as he would according unto nature Now this servitude simply accordeth not with nature as the Apostle saith If yet thou mayest be free use it rather 1 Cor. 7.21 shewing that every one by nature desireth liberty and freedome But after a sort this servitude is agreeable to nature not simply or of it selfe but as other punishments are said to be naturall as tending to the maintenance of society among men which is properly naturall And if it be objected why since all men are fallen in Adam and so brought into subjection why all likewise become not servants the answer is that two things must be considered in this our corrupt state the one is the Law of corruption brought in by sinne the other the goodnesse of God that although all men are subject by sinne to the same bondage and corruption yet the goodnesse of God qualifieth that slavish condition of nature as that some doe enjoy an outward liberty and freedome like as in the inward faculties of the soule the Lord giveth unto some more light of understanding dexterity of wit profoundnesse of judgement and other naturall gifts than unto others 3. The spirituall liberty is wrought in us by grace in Christ which is from the subjection of sinne and malediction of the Law that our conscience is no more terrified with slavish feare but we are at peace with God and beside by this spirituall liberty the faithfull have restored unto them the dominion over all creatures that though not in externall possession yet in a spirituall right all things are theirs whether the world life death things present or things to come 1 Cor. 3.22 and all things worke to the best to those that love God Rom. â— So these may very well stand together externall servitude and spirituall freedome it is possible for one to bee a freeman to God and yet a servant in the world and another to be a bondman to sinne and yet free in the world for there are divers objects of these two kindes of liberty and bondage the outward freedome respecteth this life and state the free use of riches and pleasures of this life the spirituall and internall freedome hath set before it the salvation of the soule the favour of God and life eternall Christian religion then overthroweth not the diversity of degrees among men But as Christ though he were by his spirituall right free from all taxes and impositions yet lest he should offend payed poll money Matth. 17. so Christians though they are made free by faith in the Sonne yet for the maintenance of peace and love and avoiding of offence in disturbing the temporall State they are bound as well as others to be subject unto the powers of this world Et potestatibus 〈◊〉 nos subjici in eo homine qui elementis ex quibus constat subditus est In respect of that man of ours which is subject to the elements whereof it consisteth Borrh. QUEST XI How these six yeeres are to be accounted Vers. 2. HE shall serve thee six yeeres in the seventh he shall c. Some doe expound this De publico generali anno septimo of the publike and generall seventh yeere some of the private as every mans service began Lippoman But that it is to be understood of the publike yeere of intermission it may be made plaine by these reasons 1. Because whereas every seventh yeere was appointed a yeere of intermission to forbeare tilling of the ground or exacting of debts Levit. 25. Deut. 15. if every man should make a yeere of remission of servants in his owne house and not observe the generall and solemne yeere of intermission this would have brought in and bred a great confusion Tostat. 2. This also appeareth by the analogy of the great yeere of remission which was in the fiftieth yeere for there the buying of possessions or servants was noâ— to be counted from the time of such buying but from the yeere of Jubile for as many yeeres or few remained of the Jubile so was the price to be valued Leviâ— 25. Tostatus 〈◊〉 Lyran. 3. And beside seeing in the seventh yeere there was a 〈…〉 for if a man might exact serâ—ice of his servant and not 〈…〉 more base than their substance which is not to be 〈…〉 then the meaning is not that every 〈◊〉 of the Hebrewes 〈…〉 for it might so full 〈◊〉 that he should serve but one if he were bought immediatly before the yeere of Jubile but that he should not at any time serve above six yeeres Tostat. QUEST XII The reasons why they ought to set their servants free HE shall goe out free for nothing 1. That is he shall pay nothing for his liberty because he is made free by the Law nor yet for any thing else As if the servant had lien sicke any time of the yeeres of his service and his master had beene at cost in healing of him his master in this case was to expect no recompence because his servant was as his possession even as the oxe or asse purchased for his profit and therefore his master was to stand to the losse of it Tostat. qu. 6. 2. And the reasons why this favour was to be shewed unto the Hebrewes being servants were these 1. The Lord saith For they are my servants which I brought out of the land of Egypt Levit. 25.42 that is he doth not only put them in minde of that generall benefit of their deliverance out of the bondage and servitude of Egypt the remembrance whereof ought to make them kinde and mercifull to their servants the Hebrewes which were partaken of the same common deliverance But the Lord likewise pleadeth his right and interest in them saying They are my servants so that although the Lord did somewhat depart from his owne right in
exile and the restraint of liberty which the Law did not inflict in generall that any should be banished altogether out of the land lest it might cause them to fall to idolatry as David complaineth 1 Sam. 26.19 They have cast me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord saying Goe serve other gods Yet there was aliquod particulare exilium a particular kinde of exile as when he that had killed a man and not wilfully or of hatred was confined unto one of the Cities of refuge Thom. 2.2 qu. 105. art 2. ad 10. QUEST XIX What is meant here by Ever FOr ever 1. Hierome observeth that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gholam with vau signifieth eternity but without vau as it is here it is taken for the fiftieth yeere which was the Jubile Hierom in Galata◠chap. 1. But this observation doth not alwayes hold Augustine saith that is called here aeternum for ever cujus temporis sinis non est of which time there is no end Locut 91. Oleaster saith it signifieth tempus occultum an hid time for in that sense also the word is taken Theodoret that it signifieth tempus definitum determinatum a definite and determinate time as the time of a mans life But it is here rather taken for the yeere of Jubile whether it were neerer or further off for then all servants whatsoever were redeemed Sic Lippom. Lyran. Tostat. as Levit. 25.39 Iun. QUEST XX. When the servant was to goe out free in the seventh yeere when in the fiftieth yeere BUt there may seeme to be some repugnancie betweene this Law Exod. 21.2 of the servants going out free in the 7. yeere and that Levit. 25.29 He shall serve thee unto the yeere of Iubile 1. The places are thus reconciled that here he speaketh of the freedome of such servants in the seventh yeere which accept of their freedome but there of such which refuse to be made free who shall serve for ever that is to the yeere of Jubile 2. Other cases likewise are put when servants goe not out free in the seventh yeere as if either they be not Hebrewes for then they have no benefit by this Law which is made for the privilege of Hebrewes being servants 3. Likewise if an Hebrew were sold not to an Hebrew but to a stranger he was not to be set free in the seventh yeere but might be redeemed by any of his kinred an estimation being made of the price according to the neerenesse or farnesse of the yeere of Jubile 〈◊〉 25. Simler QUEST XXI Certaine cases put when the yeere of Iubile came before the yeere of remission ALso other cases may be put 1. What if a man sell himselfe to serve five yeeres before the yeere of Jubile and in the meane time his master give him a wife and he hath children by her whether that he shall go out with his wife and children in the yeere of Jubile The answer is that he shall for then in the yeere of remission he should goe out alone without wife and children yet the Jubile being a generall remission of all kinde of bonds and contracts then he his wife children and all shall be set free 2. Likewise if the yeere of Jubile come before the yeere of remission hee that refusing to goe out free for love unto his wife and children was to have his eare bored shall not now have his eare bored for that was but a signe of his perpetuall service till the yeere of Jubile which yeere being now come he is released of the bond of servitude and so freed also from his boring which was a signe thereof Tostat. quaest 9. QUEST XXII Whether it were lawfull among the Israelites for the parents to sell their children Vers. 7. IF a man sell his daughter c. 1. It is not like that simply it was lawfull for the father to sell either sonne or daughter as Gallasius thinketh seeing that even the Heathen Emperours Dioclesian and Maximinian provided by Law that parents should not sell their children therefore this was not properly a selling of them Non datur pretium ut serviat sed principaliter ut ducatur The price was not given that she should serve but principally that shee might be married Tostat. qu. 9. 2. And this must be understood of maids not yet come to yeeres as R. Salomon thinketh under twelve yeere old both because afterward they were not in their fathers power Borrh. as also for that there was no danger to their chaste virginity being sold before they were marriageable but after there was Tostat. quaest 9. 3. There was difference betweene the selling of a maid by her father for then shee was to be handled otherwise than common servants and when she sold her selfe for in this case she was not to be free till the seventh yeere as it was with other servants Deut. 15.12 4. Tostatus seemeth to be of opinion that no women whether virgins or widowes for wives were under their husbands power could sell themselves because they put their chastity in hazard when they were so sold into service Tostat qu. 9. But this seemeth to be contrary to the letter of the Law Deut. 15.12 any Hebrewesse might sell her selfe as well as an Hebrew QUEST XXIII In what sense it is said Shee shall not goe out as other servants Vers. 7. SHe shall not goe out at other men servants c. 1. Historia scholastica maketh this the sense that she shall be dismissed by a bill of divorcement and not goe out as other maids but as other free women were dismissed if her master had espoused her to himselfe or his sonne if not shee should goe forth as other maids that is sine mercede without any reward Contra. 1. But in case that her master had taken her to wife now she was free and no longer as a servant this Law then should have beene impertinent in speaking of her going out of service but not as other servants 2. And the latter part of this exposition doth contradict the text inferring that she shall goe out as other servants whereas the Law saith otherwise She shall not c. 2. Tostatus giveth this interpretation By other maid servants he understandeth such maids as were of other nations which were two wayes set free either being redeemed by money or else if the master perished the eye or tooth of his maid she should be set free for her eye or tooth Exod. 21.26 But the case of Hebrew maids was divers they should bee set free without money and if their eye or tooth were hurt their master should pay eye for eye tooth for tooth vers 24. as if the hurt had beene done to other free men or free women Contra. 1. But it is evident that this Law meaneth not by other servants those only of other nations but such as were spoken of before namely Hebrew servants Iun. 2. And beside it is not fit to run for the exposition of
if any man did beat and batter another he should pay 25. asses that is so many three farthings which mulct being too easie one Lucius Neratius in a bravery used of purpose â—o beat and buffet those with his fists whom he met and caused his man presently to pay him the penaltie of the law whereupon the Pretors of Rome devised to impose a greater mulct and punishment for such assaults and batteries Gâ—ll. lib. 20. ex Calvin Marbach QUEST LII Who should beare the charges if a servant had done the hurt HE shall beare his charges But what if one servant had beaten another or a servant had smitten a free man that hee kept his â—ed upon it 1. In this case either the master of the servant was to beare the charges or else he was to deliver his servant and he was to serve or to be sold to make it good if hee had not of his owne to make satisfaction as the like order was taken for theft Exod. 21.3 2. But here is a further doubt what if the servant that did the hurt were an Hebrew who could not be sold over for more than six yeares and it might so fall out that there remained but one yeare untill the seventh being the yeare of remission came and so his service for so short a time could not make sufficient recompence The answer is that in this case the servant might be sold to serve six yeares more after the yeare of remission as in the case of theft if hee had not wherewithall of his owne to make satisfaction but for longer than six yeares he could not be sold nor more than once But if the servant were a Gentile he might be absolutely sold over to serve a longer time 3. Now if the charge would not come to the value or worth of six yeares service in this case the servant was to serve no longer than till his service would make sufficient amends as if a mans service for six yeares were esteemed at six pounds and the charges of healing arise to three then the servant was to bee sold over onely to serve three yeares which would countervaile the charge Tostat. quaest 23. QUEST LIII What servants this law meaneth and what kinde of chastisement is forbidden Vers. 20. IF a man smite his servant with a rod c. 1. This law is concerning such servants as were no Hebrewes for them they were not to use so hardly and cruelly Levit. 25.38 neither could the Hebrew servant be said to be their money for hee was not absolutely sold but onely for a time Tostat. 2. This case is propounded if the master smite with a rod or any other thing which is not likely to kill but if he smite him with a sword or casting of a stone or such like if the servant die whether under the masters hand or afterward the master shall be surely punished that is shall die for it because in smiting his servant with a deadly weapon it appeareth that he intended to kill him Simler Tostat. quaest 23. 3. And in case it be evident that the servant die of that beating within a day or two the master was likewise to be punished for it but if as the Hebrew phrase is hee stand a day or two after that is be whole and sound that he may goe about his businesse Simler Nam stare tantâ—ndem valet ac vigere omnibus integris membris For to stand is all one as to be perfect and sound in all the parts and members Calvin then the master was free So also expoundeth Procopius Vbi ex vulnere vel verbere convaluerit servus c. Where the servant recovereth of the stripe or wound though he afterward die the master is held to be innocent Likewise Thomas Aquin. Si â—asio certa esset lex poenam adhibuit c. If the hurt be certaine and evident the law appointeth a punishment for a maime the losse of his service vers 26. for the death of the servant the punishment of manslaughter but where the hurt is uncertaine the law inflicteth no mulct incertum enim erat â—trum ex percussione mortuus c. For it is uncertaine whether he died of the beating 4. This law for servants was more equall than that cruell custome of the Romanes that give unto masters power over their servants life as in Augustins time Vedius Polliâ— used to cast his servants that offended into the fish ponds but afterward this cruell custome was mitigated for Antoninus made a law that hee which killed his servant without cause should die for it as if he had slaine anothers servant Galas And Adrianus the Emperour banished one Vmbra a matron for five yeares for handling her maids cruelly Ex Simler 5. But whereas this law giveth libertie to the master to beat his servants though it were extremely so that death followed not wee must consider that this law requireth not an absolute perfection Sed Deus se accommodaviâ— ad 〈◊〉 populi c. But God applieth himselfe to the rudenesse of the people tolerating many things among them for the hardnesse of their hearts Galas QUEST LIV. The meaning of this clause For he is his money FOr he is his money 1. That is bought with his money hee seemeth to have punished himselfe sufficiently in the losse of his servant Iun. 2. But if this reason were 〈…〉 way the 〈◊〉 to be punished though his servant died under his hand for hee 〈◊〉 iâ— his money 3. For answer to this objection a servant is to be considered two wayes as he is a man and as he is made apt and fit â—o labour the servant oweth not to his master his life but his labour therefore if the master take away the life of the servant directly as if he die with beating under his hand the master is to be punished for it for as hee loseth a servant so the politike state is deprived of a man and herein hee doth wrong to the Common-wealth But if the master indirectly procure his servants death as in overcharging him with labour in denying him competent food in immodeâ—â—te correcting him now the master is not guiltie of his servants death for now puâ—iâ—â—at eum tanquam possessionem suam ut eâ—â—enâ—â—ret he did punish him as his possession and servant to amend and correct him not as a man therefore the reason holdeth in this indirect kinde of killing He is his money c. and not in the other Tostat. quaest 23. QUEST LV. Whether this law meane the voluntarie or involuntarie hurt done to a woman with childe Vers. 22. ALso if men strive and hurt a woman with childe 1. Some Hebrewes thinke that this case here put is of involuntarie hurts and killing as a man striving against his will hurteth a woman with childe and shee dieth for this the man was not to die in their opinion but to redeeme his life with a peece of money Contra. But where any slaughter is committed altogether against ones
will as if a man shoot an arrow and kill a woman with child or shee be behind him and he knew it not and hee hurteth her with his heele that she die in this case the man deserved no punishment at all no not so much as a pecuniary mulct to be inflicted which yet is appointed by this law where death followeth not therefore this law meaneth not any such act which is altogether involuntarie Tostat. quaest 24. 2. Neither is this law to be understood of murther altogether voluntarie as if a man of purpose should smite a woman with child and shee die for this was provided for before what punishment should be laid upon him that committed wilfull murther 3. This law therefore is made concerning such violent acts as were of a mixt kinde partly voluntarie partly involuntarie as if a man striving with one and seeing a woman with child within the danger cared not whether shee was hurt or no Tostat. Or if striving with a man he thrust him upon a woman with child Galas Or a woman comming to rescue her husband receiveth hurt by the other that striveth Lyran. In this case if death followed in the woman with child the 〈…〉 to die foâ— it 4. And the reasons are these 1. Because adfuit laedendi animuâ— he that so striveth had a minde and intent to hurt Simler Consilii ratio habenda est his counsell and intention must be considered which was to assault the life of another and by this occasion he killeth one whom he intended not to hurt Iunius Piscator 2. Againe Vxor una carâ— est cum viâ—o quem intendeâ—â— pâ—râ—utere The wife is one flesh with her husband whom he intended to smite Lyran. 3. And beside instance is given of a woman with child who neither could shift for her selfe and a double danger is brought both upon her her child which she went with therefore in this case the law provideth that such oversights should be severely punished Tostat. q. 25. QUEST LVI Whether the death of the infant be punished as well as of the mother Vers. 22. ANd death follow not c. 1. Some thinke that this is to be understood onely of the death of the woman and not of the child Osiander That if the child died and not the woman he was onely to pay a peece of money not to lose his life for it and their reason is because he deserved not so great a punishment that killed an infant in the wombe as he that did stay a perfect man Oleaster who findeth fault with Cajetane for understanding the law indifferently of the woman and her child 2. But Cajetanâ— opinion is to be preferred for like as it is a more heinous thing to kill a man in his owne house than in the way so is it a prodigious thing to suffocate an infant in the mothers wombe qui nondum est in lucem editus which is not yet brought forth into the light of this world Calvin And againe Foetus quamvis in utero inclusus homo est The infant though yet inclosed in the wombe is a man Simler And the child in the wombe is yet a part of the person of the woman so that if there be corruptioâ—â—tius perâ—oâ—a aut partis a destruction of the whole person or of a part Iun. he that so hurteth a woman with child in her owne person or her childs is subject to this law QUEST LVII Whether this law extendeth it selfe to infants which miscarie being not yet perfectly formed NOw it being agreed that this law as well comprehendeth the infant that perisheth as the woman that beareth it yet there remaineth a question whether if the childe in the wombe bee yet imperfect and so not endued with sense and life that in this case though the woman die not but onely lose her birth he that did the hurt is to suffer death 1. Some hold the affirmative that if any child whatsoever by this meanes miscarrie the offender is subject to this law 〈…〉 propâ—â—qua est effectui The iâ—fant being now formed is so neere unto the effect thâ—â— is the life that who causeth the same to miscarrie may be said to have killed a man Gallas And therefore by the Civill law he that of purpose procured the birth to miscarrie if he were a meane person was condemned to the metall mines if a noble person to banishment Cicero also in his oration pro Cluentiâ— reporteth of one Milesia a woman who being hired of the heires in reversion to destroy the infant that shee went with had a capitall puishment therefore inflicted upon her Ex Simlero But these lawes were made against such as did of purpose seeke to destroy infants in the wombe and cause abortion of them here the cause is divers where the fruit of the wombe miscarrieth by some chance 2. Therefore this penaltie was onely by the law inflicted when as the infant perished that was endued with life So Augustine thinketh using this reason Nondum potest dici anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret c. The living soule cannot be said to be yet in that bodie which wanteth sense qu. 80. in Exod. And thus the Septuagint interpret If the infant came forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not yet formed c. which forming of the infant beginneth fortie dayes after the conception as Procopius Cajetane giveth this reason why in such a case when the birth commeth forth imperfect the sentence of death is not inflicted quia homo in potentia non est homo because a man onely in possibilitie is not a man quia tunc non occiditur homo non est homicidium and because then a man is not killed it is no manslaughter Tostat. And the word jeladim sons signifieth as much that the law meaneth formed and perfect infants Simler And it is put in the plurall because a woman may have more infants than one in her wombe at once for otherwise why should one give life for life or soule for soule seeing such imperfect births are not yet endued with life soule As Augustine saith In Adam exemplum datum est c. An evident example is given in Adam quia jam formatum corpus accipit animam that the bodie when it is now fashioned receiveth the soule and not before For after Adams bodie was made the Lord breathed into him the breath of life So August lib. quaest vet nov Testam qu. 23. as he is alleaged Caus. 32. qu. 2. cap. 9. QUEST LVIII Why the action is given unto the husband Vers. 22. ACcording as the womans husband shall appoint him c. 1. Because the injurie is done unto the man in that his issue is cut off and because hee is the head of the woman the law referreth the prosecution of this wrong unto the husband Tostat. 2. But the taxation of the mulct is so referred to the man as yet if he should exceed a just proportion the Judges in
their discretion are to moderate it Gallas 3. Tostatus thinketh that these were not the ordinarie Judges of the Hebrewes sed arbitri constituti ex voluntate partis utriusque but arbitrators chosen by the will and consent of both parties quest 24. But that part of the law which followeth Thou shalt render life for life which is spoken to the Judge to whom the sword was committed sheweth that this authoritie also of setting the pecuniarie punishment is referred to the civill Magistrate QUEST LIX Whether the law of retalion be literally to be understood Vers. 24. EYe for eye tooth for tooth c. 1. Some doe thinke that this law of retalion is not to be understood according to the letter but an estimation was to be made by money so R. Salomon to whom consenteth Tostatus upon these reasons 1. Because in some of these kinds as if a foot should bee taken from him that perished his neighbours foot it might so fall out that together with the foot hee should lose his life and so there should be more than a retalion 2. And againe in the former law vers 18. where one upon anothers smiting lieth downe on his bed but riseth againe the other was onely to beare his charges there the law of repercussion and retalion tooke no place and so is it to be understood here 3. Favorinuâ— thus reasoned against this law of retalion as Aulus Gellius bringeth him in lib. 20. cap. 1. that it was impossible to be kept for if the like should be inflicted for the like as one wound for another they must take heed that the like wound in every respect should be made neither longer nor deeper if it were then a new retalion should bee offered unto the other that prosecuted the action and so there should be no end Contra. 1. The like may bee objected concerning the cutting off of other members as of the eares and hands which are inflicted by the lawes of divers countries for divers times death followeth in the amputation of such parts and yet the law intendeth not death He then may thanke himselfe that deserved such mangling of his members neither is the severitie of the law to give way because of some inconvenience which is feared And yet further thus much may bee added that where in such tetalion death was like to follow where death was not intended that in this case much was left to the discretion of the Judge that compensation might bee made in another kinde as by pecuniarie satisfaction 2. The other instance is not to the purpose for the law speaketh of such hurting when as there is no losse of any member for in that case they are referred to this law but when the body was otherwise hurt and bruised without any corruption of the parts and members then the smiter in that case was to beare his charges that rested and lay upon his bed by his meanes 3. The other objection is frivolous for it was not in the private mans hand that was wounded to make what wound he thought good againe but it was in the Judges power to order it 2. Therefore the more probable opinion is that this law is literally to be understood that he which had spoiled his neighbours eye hand foot should suffer the like himselfe as may appeare by these reasons 1. Because the first clause here set downe vers 23. Thou shalt pay life for life is literally intended not that he should pay mony for his life but he should lose his life indeed 2. Our blessed Saviour so expoundeth this law Matth. 5.38 Yee have heard it hath beene said an eye for an eye c. which libertie being given unto the Magistrate onely every private man did arrogate to himselfe to seeke revenge as he thought good and therefore our blessed Saviour correcteth that error But I say unto you resist not evill c. Now if this retalion and recompence had beene made in money and not in inflicting the like hurt they had not resisted evill or sought revenge 3. Other forren lawes also borrowed this law of retalion from Moses as among the Romanes in their twelve tables this law is extant Si membrum ruperit nisi cum eo pacit talio esto c. If he have broken a member unlesse he agree with him let there be a retalion 3. Yet this law is so literally to be understood as that it was lawfull notwithstanding to turne the like punishment into a pecuniarie mulct Iosephus thinketh it was in his choice that was hurt whether hee would be satisfied in money or have the like punishment inflicted So also Bâ—rrhaius But it is not like that it was left wholly to his choice but that it rested in the Judges discretion as before in another case the womans husband was to set the summe but the Judges were to moderate it vers 22. 4. Therefore it is like that it was in the Judges power to award either the like penaltie or a compensation in money as afterward vers 29.30 If a mans oxe used to gore chanced to kill any the owner was to die or pay a ransome of money And the reasons of this commutation are these The difficultie in the strict law of retalion that it could hardly alwayes be observed according to the letter as if hee were weake and sickly that was to lose a member he was like to lose his life also with it and if a poore man had lost an arme it was more profitable for him to have amends made him in money than to have anothers hand cut off and if the Judge should upon every ones humorous desire have taken away from one an arme or a legge this would have nourished revenge It is like then upon these reasons that the Judges as they saw cause did make a change and commutation of this penaltie with money as the Pretors did among the Romanes 5. Yet although it were in the Judges power to make a commutation of the like punishment with a pecuniarie mulct the law of retalion notwithstanding is set downe 1. Both for more certaintie because one rule could not serve for all pecuniarie taxations which might be aggravated or diminished in the discretion of the Judge according to the divers circumstances 2. As also if a mulct of money had beene set then the mutilation of the members being not warranted by the letter of the law could not have beene inflicted 3. As also this severitie in the amputation or cutting off the like part doth imprint a greater terror than if any summe of money though never so great had beene imposed Simler QUEST LX. Whether the law of retalion were just and equall BUt against the law of retalion it will be thus objected 1. That sometime there may be great inequalitie in the persons and then such equall and like requitall is not just as if a subject should smite a Magistrate and wound him it is not sufficient for the other to be wounded againe And in
the oxe is specially mentioned because the Hebrewes were most given to keeping of cattell their horse were for the most part brought out of Egypt Simler 2. It is understood to be such a goring and wounding as that death followed upon it for otherwise though one were sore wounded with the push of an oxe if he died not the oxe was not in this case to be stoned Tostat. 3. But that other conceit of Tostatus in this place is not so good secus est si calce petierit c. It is otherwise if the oxe strike with his heele not with his horne in this case the oxe is not to die because it was his fault that stood within the reach of the oxes heele whereas he pursueth after men to gore them with his horne for what saith he then to the horse heele if any were stricken to death therewith was not the horse to be killed by the equitie of this law as Lippoman expoundeth it as well de equo calcitroso of a striking horse as of a pushing oxe If this law provideth for the stroke of the horse heele why not for the oxe hee le also And this is yet more evident Gen. 9.5 that the Lord will require mans bloud at the hand of every beast the heele is as well the oxe hand as his horne By what meanes soever then a beast killeth a man this law was to take place QUEST LXIII Why the oxe that goared was commanded to be stoned to death Vers. 28. THe oxe shall be stoned to death c. 1. Though a bruit beast cannot sinne and therefore this punishment is not inflicted for any sinne committed by the beast yet it is in joyned ad horrorem facti for the horror of the fact Tostat. 2. Quia esset horribilis ad videndum c. Because the sight of such a bloodie beast would be horrible and grievous to men Lyran. 3. And it might be feared lest such a dangerous beast if he should live should kill others also Simler 4. This was also provided for the masters advantage who was bound to make good all losses which should fall out afterward by his beast which used to push Tostat. 5. And by this law men are given to understand that if bruit beasts are not spared much lesse shall they goe unpunished if they shed mans bloud Gallas 6. The equitie also of this law herein appeareth that sicut creati sunt boves in hominum gratiam c. That as oxen were created for mans sake so they should serve for the use of man whether by their life or death Calvin 6. Agreeable to this law of Moses as grounded upon the law of nature were the like constitutions among the Heathen as Solon made a law in Athens that if a dogge had bitten a man hee should be tied in an halter and delivered to him that was hurt So among the Romanes in their 12. tables it was decreed that if a beast had done any hurt Dominus aut litis astimationem solvito aut eam noxa dedito The owner should either pay aâ— was awarded or deliver up his beast to punishment Draco also was the author of this law in Athens that not onely men but beasts yea things without life that had beene the meanes of any mans death should be banished out of the countrie and cast out whereupon the image of Theogenes among the Thrasians falling upon one and killing him was adjudged to be cast into the Sea Simler QUEST LXIV Why the flesh of the oxe was not to be eaten ANd his flesh shall not bee eaten 1. It was neither lawfull for them to eat the flesh themselves nor yet to sell it to the Gentiles as they might doe other things that died alone Deut. 1â— 21 Iun. But the flesh should be cast away as a cursed and abominable thing 2. Not so much because being stoned to death it was as a thing suffocated and so they should have eaten it with the bloud Simler Osiander But tanquam aliquid maledictum c. as a thing accursed they were to abhorre the flesh of such a bloudie beastâ— so that although the owner should slay this murtherous oxe before it were stoned it was not lawâ—ull to eat the flesh thereof Tostat. quaest 30. 3. And this was tum propter horrorem factâ— both for the horror of the fact tum quia per hoc damnificabatâ—â— Dominus bovis and by this meanes also the owner of the oxe was damnified the flesh thereof being unprofitable for any thing that he might be more â—autelâ—â—â— afterward and take better heed to his cattell Lyranus 4. The Hebrewes addâ— further that the very skin of the oxe was not to be used to any purpose but the whole to be cast away as a thing abominable Tostat. quaest 28. QUEST LXV In what case the owner is to die when his oxe goared any to death Vers 29. IF the oxe were wont to push c. Another case is put when the oxe chanceth to doe any hurt with the masters knowledge where divers conditions are required 1. That the oxe used to push before the words are in the originall yesterday and yeâ— yesterday a definite time is put for an indefinite it is noâ— enough if he had once goared before but he must have one it twice at the least as R. Salomon Lyran. He must have beene knowne in former time to have beene used to push 2. This also must have beene notified and signified also to the owner for it may be that the oxe had used formerly to push and the owner knew it not Simler Or if he knew it he might denie it unlesse he had beene admonished by others to take care of his beast Tostat. quaest 28. 3. He or she must be free and not a servant whom the oxe used to push goareth to death for concerning the goaring of servants there followeth another law afterward vers 32. If the oxe goared a man or woman a sonne or daughter that is though they were never so little it was all one Lyran. Some thinke it is understood of the owners owne sonne and daughter Calvin Oleaster But the next law as touching the goaring of servants sheweth that it is rather meant of his neighbours sonne or daughter Hugo de S. Victor But it is rather understood in generall de quo viâ— capite libero of every free bodie great or small man or woman Iun. 4. In this case the owner being warned before of his oxe is to die for it because he did not keepe him in knowing him to be a harmefull beast Quia videtur illud quasi immittere aliorum cervicibus because he seemed of purpose to let him loose to doe mischiefe Simler QUEST LXVI When the owner might redeeme his left with money Vers. 30. IF there be set to him a summe of money 1. R. Salomon thinketh that in this case the next of kin to the partie slaine were to take a peece of money of the owner of the oxe and they
could not refuse but might be compelled to take it and so he taketh here si if for quia because Contra But the very letter of the law is against this exposition for it is expresly said The oxe shall be stoned and the owner shall die also But if the owner might at his libertie redeeme his life with money then he should never be put to death and so that clause of the law should be superfluous Tostat. quaest 29. 2. Neither yet is Tostatus opinion here to be received Quandoque posuit in electione cognatorum c. That the law doth put it in the choice of the kinsmen of the slaine when they would demand the owner to die and when they thought good to set him a summe of money and so hee maketh this a different case from that vers 22. where the Judges were to set the summe of money because it was no capitall offence but here he is to pay whatsoever is required by the adversarie part without any moderation or limitation of the Judges because the offence being capitall cannot be valued or esteemed by any certaine summe of money Tostat. quast 28. Contra. But this is not like that this was left to the choice of the adversaries for either they might set such an unreasonable summe which the owner was not able to pay or else might use partialitie that in the very like case some owner should die when another should escape with his life and so the law should not be equall and indifferent to all 3. Some thinke that it was in the Judges discretion to change the sentence of death into a pecuniary mulct concedit lâ—x quòd possit Iudex decernere c. The law alloweth the Judge to determine c. Cajetan Lippoman thinketh that the adversaries were to make the demand praevia tamen non iniqui Iudiciâ— moderatione c. yet by the moderation of an indifferent Judge going before But if it were altogether arbitrarie in the Judge when a man should die in this case when not to what end saith the law The owner shall die also In that case then there propounded he was certainly to die which sentence by the Judge could not be dispensed with 4. Therefore I thinke rather with Iunius that in this mitigation of the former sentence of death a divers case is put from the former that if the owner of the oxe non satis scivit did not sufficiently know it vel non satis cavit or did not take heed enough thinking he had sufficiently provided for his beast that in this case he might be excused Si simplick as vel incogitantiâ— hominem excusaâ—â—t if the mans simplicitie or forgetfulnesse did excuse him c. so that he were not found to be wilfully negligent and carelesse the Judge might set him at a summe of money Calvin QUEST LXVII What servants this law meaneth Hebrewes or strangers Vers. 32. IF the oxe goare a servant or maid 1. Some thinke this is generally meant of all servants among the Hebrewes where lesse respect is had unto servants than unto free men Vt cura libertatis major vigeret in populo Dei c. That there should be more care had of libertie among the people of God that they come not through their owne default into servitude and bondage Lippoman 2. But it is rather understood of such servants as were Gentiles and strangers and not Hebrewes as may appeare by the former lawes vers 20.26 which are onely referred unto that kinde of servants Iun. For in all kinde of percussions and wrongs offred to the bodie or life the Hebrew servants had the same privilege which free men had Againe Tostatus addeth this reason because if he were an Hebrew servant that was killed the money should not be given to his master but so much onely as his service remaining might be valued at the rest was to goe rather to his children or kindred as put the case that his service were esteemed at foure sicles yearly and there remained but one yeare of his service before the seventh yeare came then his master was to have but foure sicles of the thirtie sicles But because the Gentile servants were their masters perpetuall possession the whole summe which the servant was valued at that perished belonged unto them Tostat. quaest 3. QUEST LXVIII Why a certaine summe of money is set for all servants Vers. 32. HE shall give unto their masters thirtie sicles The common sicle weighed the fourth part of an ounce of silver so that thirtie sicles made seven ounces and an halfe that is so many dolleâ—â— seven crownes starling and an halfe Iun. which is about 37.s. 6.d. of our money Now although there was great difference in the price of servants for the men servants were more worth than the maids and the young and strong than the old and weake yet a certaine rate is set for these reasons 1. Some thinke this proportion and summe is named because out of Cham there issued thirtie generations Gen. 7. from whom servitude tooke beginning But this is but a figurative reason which rather belonged to the ceremoniall than to the politike lawes Tostat. quaest 29. 2. These reasons rather may bee yeelded 1. That whereas the summe for the death of a free man is arbitrarie vers 30. but the certaine quantitie is named for a servant slaine by a beast this was to shew a difference betweene servants and free men Cajetan 2. Quia caedes erat involuntaria c. Because this slaughter was involuntarie and the owners negligence onely is punished therefore one servant is not set at an higher rate than another Simler 3. And beside this moderate and indifferent price is taxed that the owner of the oxe and the master of the servant might as it were divide the losse betweene them that seeing it was done of negligence non multum gravaretur in solvendo Dominus bovis The owner of the oxe should not be burthened with over great payment Tostat. quaest 29. QUEST LXIX What kinde of wells this law meaneth where and by whom digged Vers. 33. WHen a man shall open a well or digge a pit c. 1. Here are two cases put when either one uncovereth a well digged alreadie or diggeth a new well and leaveth it uncovered then he is subject to this law Lyran. For if one made a well and left it covered and another commeth and uncovereth it though he made it not now he is in fault and not the other that made it quia causam immediatam tribuit malo because hee is the immediate cause of the evill or mischiefe that is done Tostat. qu. 30. 2. Rab. Salomon thinketh that if the master commanded another to make a well and leave it uncovered that in this case he is not to make good the losse but he that made it Contra. If he that made it were a servant who could not gainsay his masters commandement in this case the master was rather to be charged with the
Of the first sort are these 1. Concerning theft either apparent as either of simple theft consummate when the thing stollen is killed or sold vers 1. or of theft with violence vers 2.3 or of simple theft not consummate when the thing stollen is yet found with the man v. 4. or secret theft in feeding on other mens grounds vers 5. 2. The Law of burning vers 6. 3. The Law of committing any thing to anothers trust vers 7 8. 4. Of things taken away vers 9. 5. Of things that are hired what is to be done if they decay in his hand that hired them vers 10 11. what if they be stollen 6. The Law of borrowing and lending vers 14 15. 7. Of simple fornication what is to be done if the father consent vers 16. what if he refuse vers 17. The sacred Lawes follow 1. Which are either grounded upon the Law of Nature which are two not to suffer a witch to live vers 18. nor to lye with a beast vers 19. 2. Or upon the institution of God as not to offer unto any strange gods vers 20. 3. Or which concerne the duties of humanity to be shewed 1. Toward strangers vers 21. 2. The widowes and fatherlesse vers 22. whereunto the reason iâ— added containing a commination of punishment against those which oppresse and trouble them 3. Toward the poore neither in oppressing them with usury vers 25. nor keeping backe their pledge vers 26. with the reason vers 27. The publike Lawes are 1. Concerning duties both toward Magistrates in generall not to speake evill of the Rulers vers 28. and in particular toward Ecclesiasticall Ministers in yeelding their tithes and first fruits vers 29 30. 2. And touching the generall duty of sanctimony in themselves vers 31. testified by that outward ceremoniall signe in not eating any uncleane thing 2. The divers readings Vers. 1. Foure small beasts of the flocke for one small beast I. better than foure sheepe for a sheepe B.G.S.L. for the first word is tzon the other sheh and therefore cannot bee interpreted by the same word or than foure sheepe for a lambe C. A. for that had beene unequall or foure sheepe for a small beast P. V. for it might be a goat as well as a sheepe which was stollen and then foure goats were to be restored againe not foure sheepe tzon is a noune collective and signifieth the flocke as well of goats as sheepe Vers. 2. He shall not be guilty of bloud L.C. or of slaughter I.S. better than there shall be no capitall action against him V. or bloud shall not be shed for him B.G. or he shall be subject to death P. bloud shall not â—e to him H. that is the bloud of the slaine shall not be imputed to him it is better referred to the bloud of the slaine than of the killer Vers. 5. If any man doe feed field c. I.C.S. or cause to be fed V.A.P. better than hurt field B. G. L. the word is baghar to feed and two kindes of feeding are touched when one willingly causeth his cattell to feed on others ground or by negligence Vers. 9. In all manner of trespasse B. G. V. or matter of trespasse C.A.P. better than in every businesse of things carried away I. pashagh signifieth to trespasse to rebell or to depart from the will of the master Oleaster It is meant of all kinde of trespasse in withholding another mans goods Vers. 10. Carried away by violence I.V.A. or taken captive S.L.P. better than taken of enemies L.B.G. shabah signifieth to take by force or drive away Vers. 13. He shall bring it for a witnesse V.I.A.P. that is that which is torne for a witnesse C. or witnesse of the tearing B. better than he shall bring record G. here somewhat is wanting or bring unto him that which is slaine I. here somewhat is added or bring it to the doore S. here somewhat is changed Vers. 31. Totâ—â— of beasts C.A.P. cum cater better than tasted before of beasts I. 3. Questions discussed QUEST I. Of the 〈…〉 QUEST II. Why five oxen are restored for one and for a stollen sheepe but foure HE shall restore five oxen for an oxe 1. R. Salomon thinketh that the cause of this difference why an oxe stealer restoreth five a sheepe stealer but foure iâ— because he that stealeth a sheepe taketh more paines in carrying it upon his shoulder than he that driveth an oxe before him Contra. This is a frivolous reason 1. It is untrue which he supposeth for it is more labour to drive unruly oxen than simple and quiet sheepe 2. And what if a theefe steale many sheepe he cannot thâ—n carry them all upon his shoulder 3. Seeing to steale whether with labour or without is a grievous sinne before God â—â—thing ought to be remitted for any labour that is bestowed in a sinfull act 4. If the more labour in stâ—aling doth mitigate the theft then it should be a lesse theft to breake open an house and steale treasure than to take a thing out of the yard but the Law following determineth otherwise that a theefe breaking by night into an house might be killed 2. The ordinary Glossâ— giveth this reason because an oxe affoordeth five commodities it serveth for sacrifice for tillage for food for milke and the skin also is serviceable for divers uses but the sheepe is profitable only for foure of these for all but the second Contra. 1. But seeing an oxe is not onely profitable for these five ends but for twenty more by this reason twenty oxen should be paid for one 2. Likewise other things as gold and silver are employed for divers uses more than foure or five so then in the theft of these things also more than foure or five-fold should be restored Tostat. qu. 2. 3. The Interlinearie Glosse draweth it to a spirituall sense by five understanding the five senses and by foure the foure humours of the body all which must be afflicted by penance But it is not use in Civill and positive Lawes to leave the literall sense and follow a mysticall 4. Lyranus taketh this to be the cause whom Thomas followeth Quia bovâ—s difficiliùs custodiuntâ—r quaâ—â—ves For that oxen are more easily stollen than sheepe because they are more hardly kept and therefore the more easie theft is more severely punished But this is not alwayes so for sometime it is an easier matter to steale many sheepe than one oxe and more easily may they be conveyed away and hid out of the way 5. But Cajetane hath here a conceit by himselfe urging the signification of the word sheh which he saith properly signifieth a lambe to pay foure sheepe for one lambe he taketh to be a greater proportion and punishment than to pay five oxen for one because they were more proâ—e and ready to steale sheepe than oxen Contra. 1. But the word sheh as Oleaster sheweth signifieth not only a lambe but in generall
all the smaller cattell as well sheepe and goats as lambâ— and 〈◊〉 2. And beside the facility easinesse and readinesse of theft other things are to be respected as the worth and price of the thing stollen and the boldnesse and impudency of the theefe 6. Wherefore these reasons rather may be yeelded 1. Quia frequâ—ntius furtâ— subtraâ—ebantur 〈◊〉 It might be that it was a more frequent and usuall thing to steale oxen among the Hebrewes than sheepes and therefore God would restraine the more usuall theft by the greater punishment Tostat. 2. In hâ—c dominium majus â—adacia major In this theft of oxen the losse was greater to the owner when his exe was stollen and the boldnesse of the theefe greater 〈…〉 esse Such a theefe as should steale oxen had need be bold and cunning because such a theft cannot so easily be hid as of sheepe 3. Ab. Ezra also giveth this reason because when a sheepe is stollen the owner loseth but his sheepe but in the other theft 〈…〉 he loseth his oxe and the labour of his oxe this reason also is approved by Oleaster 〈◊〉 Gallasâ—â—â— But Tostatus taketh this exception that iâ— the losse of the oxeus labour â—e accounted here in the restitution of five-fold why should it not be respected as well when the thing stollen is found with the theefe in which â—ase he was to pay but two-fold qu. 2. The answer here is ready because where the oxe is found though thâ—â—e â—e an intermission of his labour yet there is hope of restitution againe so is there not here the oxe being killed or sold. 7. Iosephus thinketh that this Law extendeth it selfe also to other cattell in the fields as to goats as well as sheepe though they be not here 〈◊〉 But concerning the asse or horse because they are not so easily stollen being kept in the house Tostatus thinketh that the Law of two-fold restitution tooke place as in the stealing of houshold stuffe and other moveable goods But it is more like recording to the rule observed before in other Lawes that by one kinde the rest are understood and these two the oxe and sheepe are given â—n â—ssistance as the most usuall and common beasts unto which all other great and small cattell should be reduced as afterward vers 4. direct mention is made of the asse QUEST III. Of the divers punishment of theft and whether it may be capitall NOw concerning the punishment of theft 1. The licentious liberty of the Lacedemonians is much to be misliked who punished not theft at all because they thought it was a meanes to traine and exercise their people in the practice of warre Gallas for it being a Morall law Thou shalt not steale and so grounded upon the Law of nature it ought not by any contrary custome to be discontinued 2. Neither is that Law of Solâ—â— which the Romans also inserted into their twelve Tables to be altogether approved aâ—â—â—ing opposite to Moses Law for they punished manifest theft with foure-fold when the theefe was taken in the manner whereas Moses setteth it but at two-fold and theft not manifest when the theefe is not found with the thing that was stollen they censured with restitution of two-fold whereas Moses chargeth such offence with foure-fold because such an one as hath sold or killed the stollen good hath added sinne to sinne having no purpose of restitution nor there being any possibility thereof Herein therefore the Law of Moses is more equall than the other 3. The Law also of Draco is too severe which punished theft with death the Scythians did so also but they had some reason for it because they had no houses or places of defence for their cattell so that if theft among them had not beene most severely punished nothing could have beene safe 4. Nor yet am I of their opinion that thinke that lex Mosis non pertinet ad politiam nostram the Law of Moses doth not at all belong to the policie of Common-wealths now Lippom. Non sumus alligati ad leges Iudaicas forenses That we are not bound how to the Jewes Civill lawes at all Osiand but that Magistrates may increase the externall punishment whether by death or otherwise as the circumstance of time quality and condition of the people require Contra. 1. As we are not strictly tied in every point to Moses Judicials so yet the equity thereof remaineth still which chiefly consisteth in this in the due measuring and weighing of the nature of sinnes which are thought to be worthy of death 2. Punishments externall may be increased which concerned either pecuniary mulcts or other bodily chastisement not touching the life as Moses punished theft with foure-fold but afterward the sinne increasing it was set at seven-fold Prov. 7.31 Pelarg. 3. But whereas mans life is only at Gods disposition this may be safely affirmed that no humane Law can take away the life of man for any offence without either generall or particular warrant and direction from Gods Law as is more at large before declared p. 4 5. 5. And yet I cannot consent to those that thinke no theft at all ought to be punished by death for even by Moses Law a violent theft as in breaking up of an house was judged worthy of death it was lawfull to kill such a theefe vers 2. Againe sacrilegious theft was likewise punished in the same manner as Iakob giveth sentence that they should not live that had stollen Labans gods Gen. 31.32 So Achan was put to death for stealing the excommunicate thing Iosh. 7. Theft committed of wantonnesse and without mercie David adjudgeth unto death 2 Sam. 12. vers 6. Chrysostome thinketh that David legem est praetergressus exceeded the Law in that he commandeth beside the restitution of foure-fold the man to be slaine and he calleth it supereffluentem justitiam overabounding justice But the Law of God did beare out David in it for he which did sinne presumptuously and with an high hand that is of malice and obstinacie was to dye for it Numb 15.30 Such was the sinne of the rich man whose case there is propounded which having many sheepe himselfe tooke away the poore mans sheepe by violence and had no pity Further he that did steale a man was to dye for it by the Law of Moses vers 16. So that it is evident even by Moses Judiciall lawes that some kinde of theft deserved death By the Romane Lawes also as is extant in their 12. Tables servants convicted of manifest theft were first beaten and then cast downe headlong from the rocke By the Imperiall lawes a theefe for the first offence was whipped then if he offended againe he lost his eares and the third time he was hanged in Anithent ut nulli Iudici c. for now such a theefe sinneth of obstinacie and malice and contempt against the Lawes and Magistrate and may by the Law of God be worthily put to death Simler So likewise such thefts whereby the
worthy to be more punished Simler 3. Potest haberi aliqua praesumptio quòd vellet restituare There is some presumption that he would have restored it having neither killed nor sold it Lyran. 4. Truculentior est majus damnum intulit c. He is more cruell and bringeth greater losse to the owner that selleth or killeth it than he that keepeth it 3. Thomas further giveth these reasons why a more grievous punishment is inflicted for some faults more than other 1. Propter quantitatem peccati For the greatnesse of the sinne 2. Propter peccati consuetudinem c. For the custome of sinning 3. Propter multam delectationem For the more delight in the sinne 4. Propter facilâ—â—atem commâ—â—eindi c. For the more easie committing of sinne All which doe concurre in this case for both he sinneth more that stealeth and selleth or killeth and it seemeth he is more expert and accustomed and taketh greater delight and useth more facility in his busines QUEST VIII How a man is to make recompence of the best of his ground Vers. 5. IF a man hurt field or vineyard c. he shall recompence of the best c. 1. All kinde of hurting another mans ground is here forbidden as either with trampling of his cattell as he passed by or feeding Lyran. And if this hurt be done unwittingly by the straying of the cattell without the owners privity he is to make it good how much more if he doe it of purpose or in craft Gallas 2. Some thinke he is to make good the losse by giving ground and all to make his neighbour amends But that need not seeing he trespassed only in hurting the fruits of his neighbours ground it is sufficient to make satisfaction in that wherein the wrong was done 3. Neither if the hurt were done in grasse onely must the trespasser make recompence with the principall of his fruits as corne and such like as Oleaster but in the same kinde it is sufficient to make restitution wherein the trespasse was done 4. Neither is the meaning that if a man did a little hurt in his neighbours ground that all the best of his ground should pay for it but so much for so much Tostat. qu. 4. 5. There was a Law among the Romans that the beast qua panperiem fecerat which had done any dammage to another dederetur noxae should be delivered over to make good the hurt But that must be understood when the beast of it selfe without the masters fault did any hurt but here it is either the masters wilfulnesse or negligence that his cattell spoile his neighbours vineyard Gallas 6. And as the Law is here concerning vineyards and fields so it holdeth in the rest as orchards gardens pastures and the like Lyran. QUEST IX Of the breaking out of fire and the dammages thereby Vers. 6. IF fire breake out c. 1. This is meant of such kindling of fire when praeter intentionem acceâ—dentis c. when any hurt commeth of it beside the intention of him that kindled it Lyran. For they which did of purpose set stackes of corne or houses on fire were worthy of greater punishment By the Civill law vel decapitatur vel comburitur vel bestiis subjicitur he was beheaded burned or cast to the beasts can poenitent 40. By the Canon law he was to be excommunicated Caus. 23. qu. 8. cap. 32. or to want buriall if restitution were not made ibid. cap. 33. and he was enjoyned three yeeres penance can poenitent 40. 2. Such breaking out of fire then is here understood when any made a fire in the field as husbandmen use to doe in August to burne up the stubble to make their ground more fruitfull and some casualty happened the fire being carried of the winde or lighting upon some hedge Tostat. Though no mention be made of the neighbours house and barnes yet under one kinde the rest are understood Marbach 3. If it catch thornes This Cajetane thinketh to be one of the dammages which must be made good if it catch the hedge or corne but it rather sheweth the meanes whereby the fire increaseth and is dispersed by taking hold first of the hedge and so finding combustible matter goeth further Some understand this to be meant of such thornes as husbandmen use to set about their corne to keepe it from cattell Oleaster But it is better referred to the hedge where with the fields are sensed Simler 4. There are three things named which may receive hurt by the fire either the corne reaped and gathered into shocks or stacks or the standing corne not yet cut downe or the corne that is mowed or reaped but yet not gathered together which is meant by the field which three the Septuagint expresse by these three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the corne floore where the corne is stacked as in barnes the eares of corne standing and the field under corne also understand hay and trees and such like Lippoman 5. Here then a man is punished for his negligence because he kept the fire no better as if he kindle a fire in a windy day or in a place open to the winde or neere unto a wood or hedge where there is matter fit for the fire Otherwise if he used all diligence and foresight and there fell out any casualty by any other accident and not by his default as if any hairy beast comming by chance do catch the fire as a cat or dog it seemeth that in this case he is not bound to make good the losse for the fire did not breake out now from him Lyran. Of this kinde was that hurt which was done to the Philistims corne when Sampson tied firebrands betweene the fox tailes which running among their corne set it on fire Tostat. 6. Now this difference may be observed betweene this Law which enjoyneth full restitution to be made and the former where for the feeding of anothers grounds or otherwise hurting of it by cattell only satisfaction is to be made out of the best of the others grounds because where the fire setteth in the whole is spoiled but where beasts breake in that onely is spoiled which they feed or trample upon and therefore here amends is made only for part there for the whole Tostat. QUEST X. Why the keeper of things in trust is not to make good that which is lost Vers. 7. IF a man deliver his neighbour money or stuffe to keepe c. 1. The Law is this that he which hath received another mans good of meere trust to keepe if it be lost not through his fault as if it be pilfred or stollen away the keeper in trust is not to make it good and the reason is because he receiveth no profit by keeping but did it of good will and therefore there is no reason that he should be punished for his kindnesse Simler Hereunto agreeable is the Law of Alexander Periculum depositi casu accidens penes deponentem est
The danger of a thing committed to ones trust happening by chance as by robbery and stealing resteth in the owner not in the keeper 2. If the theefe that stole them be found he in this case shall pay but double because the things stollen are not oxen or sheepe for then the former Law was to take place of restoring five-fold or foure-fold but money or stuffe which only were to be restored double and this was to be payed to the owner not to the keeper because he had no right in the thing neither was to make it good being lost 3. But here other considerations are supplied by humane Lawes as whether that thing be onely stollen which was committed to the keeper and all the keepers things beside were safe for here some fraud or default of his may be imagined or whether the keeper did not first offer himselfe to keepe the things delivered to him or received not somewhat for the keeping or kept them longer than the time appointed and agreed upon for in all these cases the keeper is in fault and was bound to make good the things committed unto him But these circumstances needed not be inserted into the Law because the Lord thought not good to encumber his people with such a multitude of Lawes and the Lord endued the Judges in those dayes with such an understanding heart that having but the generall principles and rules given them they could apply and accommodate them to every particular action Tostat. QUEST XI How the fraud in the keeper of trust was to be found out and punished Vers. 8. IF the theefe be not found Now the rest of this Law sheweth what course is to be taken if the theft be not apparent the keeper must be put to his oath 1. In this case either the keeper himselfe might be the theefe and deteine the things left with him and then he was to be put to his oath whether he had not used any fraud if he refused to take his oath he confessed himselfe guilty and so was charged to restore the double as followeth in the next verse But if the owner could prove a fraud in the keeper first by witnesses then he was not put to his oath for this was to be done where other proofe failed Tostatus 2. Now divers frauds might be committed by the keeper 1. For he might either deny he had the thing and so refuse to restore it and by the Imperiall lawes he that did so was condemned as infamous 2. Or he might alleage that he had it but the owner was indebted unto him in as much but this would not serve his turne for depositorius non debet objicere compensationem the keeper could not object compensation of debt and so be his owne carver as Iustinian decreed 3. The keeper might lend the thing committed unto him to another ad solutionem nihilominus tenetur yet by the Law he was bound to make it good 4. He might also convert it to his owne use and this was adjudged to be plaine theft deposuum convertens in usus suos furti tenetur He that turneth the thing committed to him to his owne use is guilty of theft 3. Or the owner might be the theefe in stealing away that which he had given another to keepe As C. Marius besieging the City Tolosse in France received of the Governour of the City an hundred thousand pound weight of gold which he sent to Maâ—lilia to keepe then he with some other disguising their habit went and tooke it away If the owner should either be accessary to the theft himselfe or should accuse his neighbour falsly he was to pay double unto him by the sentence of the Judge Or if he produced false witnesses against the keeper in trust they were to be condemned in the like because the keeper should have beene forced by their false testimony to pay double and the Law was that it should be done to the false witnesses as they intended to have done to their neighbour Deut. 19.19 4. This Law of Moses of committing things to ones trust was more equall than that among the Pisidians which Stobaeus maketh mention of serm 42. by the which he which defrauded the trust reposed in him was put to death and then the contrary custome among the Indians where no action at all lay against the depositorie that is him to whose keeping things were committed in trust Pelarg. QUEST XII What is to be done with things that are found Vers. 9. IN all manner of trespasse c. 1. This is a generall Law here inserted not only of things put to ones keeping but of other things also howsoever lost or come to anothers hand Simler Lippom and it differeth from the former Law in these two things because there mention is made only of dead goods as of money or stuffe committed to ones charge this Law also speaketh of living creatures as oxen asses sheepe that Law concerneth onely things given to keepe this is beside as touching any thing that is lost which another challengeth to be his 2. But where he saith whom the Iudges condemne this is understood whether depositorius convictus the depository or keeper be convicted or accusator temerarius or the accuser be found rash and false whether the one or the other he was to pay double unto the party grieved Iun. 3. And this must be interpreted according to the former Law that in dead things they were to make recompence onely of two-fold but in other living creatures of five-fold or foure-fold if the thing stollen were killed or sold otherwise but of two-fold Tostat. 4. By this Law it is evident that not only things given in trust to keepe but also such as are lost and found by another are to be restored for this is a kinde of theft before God not to restore unto the owner that which one findeth as Augustine well saith Si quid invenisti non reddisti rapuisti quantum potuesti fecisti quia plus non invenisti ideo non plus rapuisti If thou hast found any thing and not restored it thou hast robbed as much as thou couldest thou diddest because thou foundest no more thou tookest no more Deus cor interrogat non manum c. God examineth thy heart not thine hand Hom. 50. QUEST XIII How this Law of committing things to trust differeth from the former Vers. 10. IF a man deliver unto his neighbour to keepe c. This Law is divers from the former for there the keeper is not chargeable if the thing given to keeping be stollen but here he is to make it good vers 12. 1. Some make the reason of this difference to be this Hoc de deposito vivo intelligendum est This must be understood of a living thing as an oxe or sheepe committed to one to keepe the other Law speaketh of dead things as money or stuffe for the chiefe substance of the Israelites consisted of cattell which therefore the Law
Quare per avaritiam duplici te benedictione fraudas Wherefore thou by thy covetousnesse doest defraud thy selfe of a double benefit August ibid. 6. The withholding of tithes and duties commanded by God is a meanes to procure Gods curse upon the earth as the Lord saith by his Prophet I will send a curse upon you and will curse your blessings c. Behold I will corrupt your seed and cast dung upon your faces c. and yee shall know that I have sent this commandement unto you that my covenant which I made with Levi might stand c. Upon which words Hierome thus writeth Quia mihi non reddidistis decimas primitias ideo in penuria fame maledicti estis Because ye have not rendred unto me tithes and first fruits therefore are ye cursed with penurie and famine Augustine also Si tu illi decimam non dederis ut tu ad decimam revoceris c. This is just with God that if thou pay not the tenth thou shalt thy selfe be brought to the tenth c. Novem tibi partes retractae sunt quia decimam dare noluisti c. Nine parts are taken from thee because thou wouldest not pay the tenth Dabis impio militi quod non vis dare sacerdoti c. Thou shalt give to the wicked souldier that which thou wilt not give to the devout Priest c. That is either by unseasonable weather or by the invasion or spoile of the enemie or by some meanes or other thou shalt lose thy wonted increase QUEST LVII Whether this law be understood of the redemption of the first borne or of their consecration to Gods service Vers. 30. THe first borne of thy sonnes shalt thou give me 1. Osiander with some others understandeth this of redeeming the first borne with money as before chap. 13.13 they are bid to buy out their first borne But if this law intended the redemption of the first borne onely then it had beene lawfull for them presently to redeeme their first borne but so was it not for then there should have beene no Ministers for the service of God for the Levites came not into the place of the first borne untill the second yeare the first moneth of their departure out of Egypt therefore untill that time the first borne were not to be redeemed but after this law published which was in the third moneth of the first yeare not long after the Morall law was delivered the first borne sacrificed still chap. 24.5 and therefore were not as yet redeemed 2. Therefore the law of redeeming the first borne is not here onely insinuated but that they should be also consecrate unto the service of God Non intelligitur lex de redemptione primo genitorum sed de applicatione ad Deum The law is not understood of the redemption of the first borne but of their applying unto the service of God untill the separation and division of the Leviticall tribe and then to be redeemed with money So by this law is confirmed that ancient custome which of a long time continued among the people of God that the first borne should be the Priests and sacrificers Though in the first age of the world this distinction was not brought in but they indifferently sacrificed as well the first borne as others as we reade of Caine and Abel Tostat. quaest 18. 3. This law of the first borne is more at large set forth chap. 13. but here repeated ut hominum socordiam excuteret c. to shake off their drowsinesse and negligence and to stirre them up to a diligent observation of the law Gallas And now by a solemne law that is enacted which was given onely in precept before Simler 4. Augustins distinction may here bee received betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first borne which are understood to have beene either of men or beasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first fruits of their grounds and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were the first of the fruits sed jam redactis de agro but now brought out of the field as of their dow flower and such like QUEST LVIII Why the first borne of cattell were not to be offred before the eighth day Vers. 30. SEven dayes shall it be with his damme 1. Whereas it is said before Likewise shalt thou doe with thine oxen c. R. Salomon thinketh that as the first borne of men were not to be redeemed till after 30. dayes at the time of the purification so the first borne of the oxen should be kept 30. dayes with the owner and of sheepe 50. dayes before they were offred unto God And this terme of seven dayes is not limited saith he for the first borne but for other sacrifices which the Priests should not offer before the eighth day Contra. But this word likewise onely signifieth that they should offer the first borne of their cattell as before it is said of their sonnes it cannot have any such reference to any such terme because there was none mentioned before and why was not the terme of eight dayes as well to hold in the oblation of the first borne as in other sacrifices 2. Oleaster is of a contrarie opinion that these eight dayes are limited as well for the first borne of men as of cattell But it is unlike and without all probabilitie that the first borne of children should be taken from their mothers upon the eighth day 3. Therefore this precept concerneth onely the first borne of cattell that because they were weake and of an imperfect substance till the eighth day they should not offer that cujus nullus usus inter homines whereof there was no use among men Gallas 4. It was not necessarie that precisely upon the eighth day it should be offred unto God but that not before the eighth day at any time after the eighth day it might Tostat. quaest 18. 5. As in the offring of the first fruits the law provideth they should use no delay nor bee slacke to pay them because it might bee an advantage to the owner so here order is taken that they should not make too great haste in offring the first borne of their cattell to be rid of them the sooner Simler QUEST LIX Of the meaning of this law whether it were mysticall morall or historicall 1. SOme thinke that the eighth day is prescribed for the oblation of their first borne because that day was appointed also for circumcision Calvin 2. Some to prefigure the institution of the Lords day which should succeed the legall Sabbath upon the eighth day Pelarg. 3. Rabanus maketh this mysticall application that as the first borne was kept seven dayes with the damme and presented the eighth so oportet nos in praesenti tempore c. honorum operum primogenita elaborare c. so we should in this present time of the world labour out the first borne of our good works untill we shall bee presented at the resurrection which
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
worship even naturall reason teacheth As even among the Heathen the publike ministers were publikely maintained as souldiers and such like whereupon the Apostle saith Quie militat propriis stipendiâ— Who goeth a warfare of his owne charge Partim erat judiciale quantum ad determinationem decimae partis c. It was partly judiciall in the determination of the tenth part that whereas the tribe of Levi being the twelfth tribe was consecrated to the service of the Tabernacle who had no possessions as the other tribes it was thought reasonable that the other eleven tribes should give unto them the tenth part of their fruits and increase that there might be some equalitie that although the tribe of Levi were not the full tenth part of Israel yet the tenth of the profits was granted unto them ut honorabilius viverent that they might be maintained more honourably quia aliqui per negligentiam transgressores futuri erant and to make amends for them which should transgresse herein of negligence So Thomas There was beside a ceremoniall respect in the paiment of tithes because they were then due for the ceremoniall service and externall sacrifice of the Tabernacle and in respect of the necessitie of the law of tithes that the Levites were to be maintained thereby and by no other meanes or way In both which respects the law of tithes touching the ceremonie is not in force now nor yet as it was a judiciall constitution but in respect of the equitie thereof and morall part it ought still to remaine Here then we dissent first from them which thinke the law of tithes was altogether a ceremonie and so bindeth not now which seemeth to be the opinion of Gallasius Non jubemur jam fruges c. pastoribus pro munere offere Wee are not commanded now to offer our fruits to the Pastors for a gift c. for this is contrarie to the Apostle Galath 6.6 Let him that is taught in the word make him that hath taught him partaker of all his goods If of all his goods how is he not to yeeld unto him of his very fruits and increase Secondly the opinion of the Rhemists is likewise to be refused which hold the paiment of the very tenth a naturall dutie and so not to be altered for if this were so it were not lawfull by any other meanes equivalent to tithes by contribution or otherwise to provide for the maintenance of the Ministers for being a naturall dutie it ought not to bee changed But in S. Pauls time the Pastors and Churches were provided for otherwise than by tithes as by liberall benevolence and contribution for the which he commendeth the Macedonians for their bountie that wayes 2 Cor. 8.2 The Rhemists also have another assertion that tithes are due to the Priesthood of the new Testament whereas they are not now challenged in the right or respect of any externall sacrifice or sacrificing Priesthood which hath no institution in the new Testament which acknowledgeth Christ onely a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech but in regard of the word preached and other ministeriall duties and sowing of spirituall things 1 Cor. 9.11 Thirdly the opinion of the Canonists that the tithes are precisely due jure divino by the divine law is confuted by Bellarmine for then all those Churches should transgresse Godâ— ordinance which have brought in any other ordinance so it be equivalent to tithes for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Gospell otherwise than by tithes Fourthly neither yet can I altogether subscribe unto the opinion of Thomas that saith Determinatio decimae partis est solvenda authoritate Ecclesiae That the determinate tenth part is now in the time of the new law paiable by the authoritie of the Church c. But it may safely be affirmed that tithes are due jure divino by the divine law and by the word of God and not onely commanded by the constitution of the Church first negative negatively tithes are so due simply and absolutely that is that none have right unto tithes but the Pastors and Ministers of the Gospell but what is once consecrated truly to religious uses ought so to continue Secondly affirmatively also this assertion is true though primaria now directly and precisely the tenth part is not now exacted by the law of the Gospell yet secundaria c. ex consequenti secondarily and by good consequent tithes are now due by the word of God not onely in generall that Ministers should bee maintained but in regard of that particular proportion of the tenth at the least for the liberall and sufficient maintenance of the spirituall Ministers is grounded upon the law of God and nature and who can be a better Judge of this sufficiencie than God himselfe who first in his wisdome did set this proportion of the tenth in the fittest allowance for his Ministers so that whosoever should innovate this ordeâ— as thinking some other course to be more convenient should seeme therein to make himselfe wiser than God But for the further discussing of this matter I likewise referre the Reader to the former place 6. Controv. Of the Lenten fast ANd because mention is here made of tenths I will adde one word of that curious observation which Lippoman hath out of the collections of the Fathers concerning the Lenten fast which they would have warranted by this law of tithes because the whole yeare consisting of 365. dayes the full tenth hereof ariseth to 36. dayes the time of the Lenten fast So also Bellarmine maketh this one of the reasons of their Lenten fast Contra 1. But this account agreeth not with the time of Lent which continueth six weeks full and foure dayes beginning at Ash wednesday which is the first day of Lent which in all make 46. dayes if they abate the Lords dayes for the six weeks there yet remaine 40. dayes if they will have the saturdayes also abated there will bee then but 34. dayes left so no wayes can they make these accounts to agree 2. They would shew themselves herein wiser than God who did appoint his holy dayes by sevens not by tennes 3. The Lenten fast then 〈◊〉 now observed not as a spirituall tenth of time in respect of any religious use but as a politicall iâ—â—erdiction and time of restraint for the good of the Common-wealth 7. Controv. Against free will in good works Vers. 29. THe first borne of thy sonnes c. Isidore hath here a good observation Spiritualiter 〈◊〉 principia honorum operum ostendunt c. Spiritually the first borne doe shew the beginning of good works by this the Lord sheweth bonâ—â— voluntatem c. ad ipsius gratiam pertinere that a good will which goeth before the worke belongeth unto his grace against the Pelagians who ascribe the beginning of good works to their owne free will 6. Morall observations 1. Observ. To be faithfull in the graces and gifts of the spirit committed to
us Vers. 7. IF a man deliver to his neighbour money or stuffe to keepe c. As God would have his people to be faithfull in keeping and restoring such things as were committed to their trust so much more should we shew our faithfulnesse in these things quae ipse apud nos deponit which he committeth unto our trust and credence as in using well to his glorie the gifts and graces which we have received as S. Paul saith to Timothie That worthie thing which was committed unto thee keepe through the holy Ghost 2 Tim. 1.14 Marbach This also may be applied unto that care and faithfulnesse which Pastors ought to shew in diligent feeding of the Lords flocke committed unto them Simler 2. Observ. Experience of misery causeth us to pittie the miserable Vers. 21. FOr ye were strangers Optima pietatis magistra experta indigentia c. Our owne experience of want and necessitie is the best instructer and teacher of mercie Oleaster They then which have beene in miserie themselves and know not how to pitie others in the like case shew themselves to be of a vile nature and of an hard and cruell disposition the Scripture saith of Christ himselfe In that hee suffred and was tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted Heb. 2.18 3. Observ. Against cruell Creditors that keepe their debtors in prison Vers. 27. FOr it is his covering onely If the law judge it a cruell thing to take a mans covering for a pledge which should keepe him from the cold of the night how much doth their crueltie exceed which cast their poore debtors into prison there to lie in cold iron naked and hungrie without comfort Simler Which hard dealing is reproved in the parable in him that cast his fellow servant in prison for debt not to come out thence till he had paid it Matth. 18.30 CHAP. XXIII 1. The Method and Argument THere are two parts of this Chapter 1. Certaine lawes are propounded first Civill to vers 10. then Ecclesiasticall from thence to vers 19. 2. Then followeth a generall exhortation to obedience to Gods Commandements thence to the end of the Chapter The Civill lawes are of two sorts either generall concerning all sorts of men to vers 6. or speciall touching the office of Judges vers 6. to 10. The generall likewise are either of particular politicke duties namely these foure 1. Not to receive a false rumour 2. Not to be a false witnesse 3. Not to follow a multitude to pervert the truth 4. Not to be partiall in an unjust commiseration toward the poore in his cause vers 3. either of the generall duties of charitie as what is to be done toward ones enemies oxe or asse being found going astray or lying under his burthen vers 4 5. The speciall lawes concerning a Judge are these 1. Not to overthrow a poore mans right vers 6. 2. Not to heare a false matter 3. Not to condemne the innocent vers 7. 4. Not to receive rewards vers 8. nor to oppresse strangers vers 9. The Ecclesiasticall lawes follow of two sorts 1. Concerning the festivall times 1. Of the yeare of rest vers 10 1. 2. Of the day of rest vers 12. 3. Of the three feasts of the yeare to vers 17. 2. Then follow certaine lawes belonging to the service of God 1. Of their appearing before God 2. Of leavened bread 3. Of the fat of the sacrifices 4. Of the first fruits 5. Of not â—â—â—thing the kid in the dammes milke to vers 19. The second part containeth an exhortation to obedience 1. Concerning their state present that they should be obedient to the Angell which conducted them which was Christ Jesus with two reasons thereof 1. From the feare of those judgements and revenge which the Angell should otherwise take of them vers 21. 2. From the benefits which he should procure for them if they did obey vers 22.23 2. Then he sheweth how they should walke in the service of God afterward when they were come into the land of Canaan and root out all Idolatrie vers 24. which exhortation is strengthened with divers promises 1. Of plentie 2. Of health 3. Of fruitfull 〈◊〉 4. Of the casting out of their enemies before them with the meanes whereby vers 28. and the manner how by little and little vers 29 30. 5. Of the dilating of their borders vers 31. with removing two impediments thereof the making of covenant with the Canaanites and suffering of them to dwell among them 2. The divers readings Vers. 1. Thou shalt not carrie a false report I.A. better than thou shalt not receive L.S.V.G.P.G. nasha signifieth the first rather here because in that sense as well the author as reporter of a false tale is here reproved as Thou shalt not have to doe with any false report B. Vers. 2. Thou shalt not follow the mightie I. So Oleaster better than the many or the multitude B. G. cum caeter rabbius signifieth both the mightie and many the first rather because of the opposite part in the next verse dal the poore which is set against the mightie Vers. 5. Thou shalt put it downe with it I. better than wilt thou leave it with him V. A. with an interrogation for lawes use not to be set forth interrogatively or thou shalt helpe him up with it B. G. cum câ—ter the word ghazab signifieth to leave lay aside not to helpe so also Oleaster See the question following upon this verse Vers. 8. Gifts blind the seeing B.V.A.P.I.S. better than the wise L.C.G. the word is pikechim the seeing that is the wise that is the sense but not the interpretation Vers. 24. Thou shalt not bow thee downe to their gods I. A. P. better than bow downe to c. for the verbe is in hithpael or than thou shalt not worship their gods or idols V.L. cum cater for shacah signifieth to bow downe and the preposition â— lamed signifieth to 3. Questions discussed QUEST I. Of raysing or reporting false tales Vers. 1. THou shalt not report a false tale 1. Some doe read Thou shalt not receive because the word nasha doth as well signifie to beare and sustaine as raise and lift up So read the Chalde Septuagint Latine with others Oleaster Lyranus Calvin also and Simlerus doe preferre this sense But it is better translated Thou shalt not raise a false tale Iun. As the like law is given Levit. 19.16 Thou shalt not walke about with tales and this generally comprehendeth as well the first author of a false report as the bearer and carier and so Lippoman also interpreteth well Non siâ— author falsi rumeris aut fingas in cerdo c. Be not the author of a false report or faine it in thine heart c. 2. Some doe referre it to the person of the Judge that he should not punish any because of an evill report spread of him Osiander Or Vt non audiatur una pars in absentia
feasts were celebriora more solemne and kept with greater majesty 6. Hereby also Christ and his Church was prefigured that in him there should be but one shepheard and one sheepfold he should be the only Priest and Mediatour and he should prescribe one Faith one Baptisme Simler See more hereof quest 36. chap. 23. QUEST XLIV Who were bound to goe up to the feasts NOw whereas the males only were to appeare before the Lord 1. The women are excepted because they were unfit both in respect of their domesticall businesse which was to be cared for in the absence of their husbands as also for that they might be often letted by giving sucke or being with child and they were not in regard of the tendernesse of their sex to take so long a journey And yet devout women specially when they dwelt not farre off from the place of the Sanctuary did use to goe up as Anna the mother of Samuel and the Virgin Marie Tostat. quaest 22. 2. As for their servants the men were bound to goe up as well as their masters there was one Law for both the maids also sometime went up with their masters but they were not bound as Deut. 12.18 and chap. 16.14 both they their sonne daughter servant maid were to rejoyce before the Lord in their solemne feasts 3. Neither were all the males bound to go up as the children which were not able to goe nor yet were of discretion to understand what they there heard or saw done Tostatus ibid. 4. Neither were the male children bound to goe up as soone as they began to be of discretion as Tostatus giveth instance of our blessed Saviour who at twelve yeeres old went up with his mother for both that example was extraordinary no childe at those yeeres was to be compared unto Christ and beside when such children went up with their parents it was voluntary not exacted by Law 5. Wherefore such males must be understood qui sub censum transibant which passed under the summe or account who were under twenty Calvin and exceeded not fifty as the Hebrewes thinke Simlerus QUEST XLV Whether all the males were bound every yeere to goe up thrice to the Sanctuarie Vers. 24. I Will cast out the nations before thee 1. Here the Lord prevenâ—â—th an objection the people being required thrice in a yeere to goe up to the Sanctuary might have doubted that their enemies might have taken advantage of their absence and so have invaded them the Lord therefore biddeth them to be secure for that matter for he would cast out their enemies before them and so worke that they should not desire their land and therefore they should not be afraid to goe up to appeare before the Lord Gallasius 2. Some thinke that this Law of appearing thrice in a yeere before the Lord did not binde but untill such time as their borders were enlarged quando secura universa regio futura erat when the whole land should be quiet Cajetane Which Calvin thinketh was not till God having subdued all his enemies Sanctuarium suum locavit in Sion had placed his Sanctuary in Sion c. But this is not like that the people kept not this Law till David and Salomons time for they were commanded to observe all the Lawes and ordinances when they were come into the land of rest Deut. 12.9 So that by inlarging of their coasts is not meant the making of them larger but the planting of them in the land of Canaan Tostat. qu. 22. 3. Some thinke that this never happened unto the Jewes according to the letter that all their enemies were subdued unto them and therefore in futura vitae complebitur it shall be fulfilled in the next life Gloss. interlin But if this had never beene performed how should the people have beene incouraged by this promise to goe up thrice in a yeere True it is that there were some Canaanites still dwelling among them yet were the nations of them destroyed though not every particular one of the nation 4. Some are of opinion that this promise was made with a condition if they did then endevour to keepe their bounds and set watchmen and garrisons in their borders that then the Lord would protect them that the rest of the males might safely goe up Ex Lippom. But when should those males which kept the garrisons have gone up they could not then observe this Law to goe up thrice in a yeere 5. Some thinke that every third yeere only they which dwelt farthest off came up to the Sanctuary and two yeeres they were free because mention is made of tithes to be laid up in the end of three yeeres Deut. 14.29 But that must be understood of another tenth part beside that which was to be paid yeerely vers 22. which they were yeerely to eat before the Lord vers 23. and therefore that cannot stand that every third yeere only they were bound to goe up 6. Tostatus his opinion is because it was both chargeable for them to goe thrice and come thrice that is six times in all in a yeere and they in that time lost their labour at home and beside in the space of six moneths betweene the sixth and seventh moneths wherein all these three principall feasts were observed these six journeyes fell out and within one moneth after their returne from the Passeover they were to come up againe to the feast of the Pentecost He thinketh therefore that they only which dwelt neere hand came up thrice in the yeere they which were further off only went up once in the feast of the Passeover and in the seventh yeere of remission twice in the said feast and at the feast of Tabernacles when they were to heare the Law read unto them Deut. 31.12 quast 21. Contra. 1. The words of the precept are generall Three times in a yeere shall all the males appeare before the Lord Deut. 16.16 there are none excepted 2. Yea speciall order is taken for them which dwelt farre off that they might turne their offering into money Deut. 14.25 and every yeere they were to give the tithe of their increase and eat it before the Lord. 7. Wherefore the truer opinion is that all the males which were appointed to come up ascended thrice every yeere whereupon it is evident non tam longam vel latam fuisse promissionis terram c. that the land of Promise was not so long and large that in the space of foure moneths or at the most six they could come and go thrice to Jerusalem Lippom. For as Hierom writeth the land of Canaan was not above an hundred and sixty miles long and sixty miles broad allow then the furthest part of the land to be an hundred and twenty miles from the Sanctuary For wee must not imagine that it was placed in the utmost coasts it would aske them but a seven nights journey to the Tabernacle and as much homeward that is six weekes in the yeere somewhat above the