wicked as Abraham followed after the foure Kings that had taken Lot prisoner and delivered him out of their hands Gen. 14. 3. The manner also must bee considered that although the cause of warre be just yet that it be not rashly set upon but all other meanes must first be tried as Ezekiah before he would by force resist the King of Assyria sought to have pacified him by paying a certaine tribute 2 King 18.14 So the children of Israel before they assaulted their brethren the children of Benjamin by open warre because of the wickednesse of the Gibeonites committed against the Levites wife first required of them that those wicked men might be delivered into their hands which when they wilfully refused then they resolved to set upon them Iudg. 20.13 Ex Simlero 4. Confut. Against the Romanists that make difference betweene counsels and precepts IN the next place the Romanists are to bee dealt withall and here commeth first to be examined that assertion that whereas we affirme that even in this Commandement Thou shalt not kill that dutie of charitie is prescribed even in loving our enemies they affirme that this is no precept which we are bound to keepe but a counsell of perfection and a worke of supererogation Thom. Aquin. 2.2 qu. 25. art 9. Contra. 1. This derogateth from the authoritie of Christ to say that he gave counsell to his Disciples and did not by his authoritie command them 2. Seeing all the duties of charitie are required by the law for love is the fulfilling of the law it followeth that even this dutie also in loving our enemies is enacted by the law and not left free 3. Our Saviour adding further as a reason hereof that ye may bee children of your Father which is in heaven sheweth that wee cannot otherwise bee the true children of our heavenly Father unlesse we be like him herein even in loving of our enemies then it will follow that it is not a counsell of conveniencie but a precept of necessitie Ex Bastingio See more of this popish distinction of counsels and precepts Synops. Centur. 1. err 84. 5. Confut. Against the Popish distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes ANother assertion of the Romanists here to be taxed is that anger si sit talis motus ut deducatur ratio est peccatum mortale c. If it be such a motion as that the reason is drawne to consent it is a mortall sinne Si usque ad consensum non pervertitur ratio est peccatum venidle c. But if reason be not perverted to consent then it is a veniall sinne but if it bee not a mortall or deadly sinne in the nature and kinde thereof as is murther and adulterie then although there be a consent it is no mortall sinne Sic Thom. in opuscul This distinction of sinnes veniall and not veniall in their owne nature in respect of the greatnesse or smalnesse of the sinne is not to bee admitted for these reasons 1. In the respect of the nature of sinne which of it selfe deserveth death Rom. 6.23 The wages of sinne is death and sinne is the transgression of the law 1 Ioh. 3.4 and every transgression of the law is under the curse Galath 3.10 2. In respect of the infinite Majestie of God which to violate can bee no veniall sinne of it selfe considering also the perfect and absolute righteousnesse of God which cannot abide the least blemish or imperfection therefore in regard of the perfect righteousnesse and infinite Majestie of God no sinne committed against God can in it selfe bee veniall 3. And concerning this motion and passion of anger even when it is sudden and unadvised though there bee no further purpose or intendment to hurt it is guiltie of judgement Matth. 5.22 Where by the way it shall not bee amisse to note the difference here betweene Thomas Aquin and Bellarmine for Thomas holdeth this anger here spoken of to bee a deadly sinne in that he saith He that is angrie with his brother shall be guiltie of judgement it must be understood dâ— matu tendente in nocumentum c. of a motion tending to hurt where there is consent and so that motion is deadly sinne Sic Thomas in opuscul Ex Lippoman But Bellarmine affirmeth that this is a veniall sinne and so deserveth not everlasting damnation because hell fire is onely due unto the last to call one foole Bellarm. lib. 1. de purgator cap. 4. Contra. 1. Every mortall sinne deserveth damnation but in Thomas Aquins judgement as is shewed before this anger here spoken of is a mortall sinne Ergo. 2. The naming of hell fire onely in the last place sheweth not a divers kinde of punishment from the rest but a divers degree of punishment for otherwise judgement in Scripture â—s taken for damnation as Psal. 143.2 Enter not into judgement with thy servant for no flesh is righteous in thy sight So Rom. 2.1 In that thou judgest another thou condemnest thy selfe Here to judge and condemne are taken for all one to be culpable then of judgement is to bee guiltie of damnation 4. Yet we admit this distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes if it be understood not in respect of the nature of sinne but of the qualitie of the persons for unto those that beleeve all sinnes are veniall and pardonable through the mercie of God Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus but to the wicked and unbeleevers all their sinnes are mortall Rom. 6.23 to them the stipend and wages of sinne is death See more also hereof Synops. Papis Centur. 4. err 6. 4. Morall observations 1. Observ. Not to be hastie to anger THou shalt not kill Our blessed Saviour expounding this Commandement Matth. 5.22 sheweth that even hee which is angrie unadvisedly transgresseth this precept which may bee a caveat unto furious cholerike and hastie men that they should bridle their intemperate affections and not give place to rage for as Chrysostome saith Si concedatur licentia irascendi datur causa homicidii faciendi If libertie be granted unto anger even cause many times will bee given of murther But if any man shall say when hee is angrie with a man for railing and reviling that hee is angrie with his sinne let him consider that when he heareth the name of God blasphemed he is not so much moved which sheweth that he is angrie in respect of his owne name and person which is called in question and not simply for the sinne Simler 2. Observ. The challenging of one another into the field forbidden ANd if it be simply unlawfull to kill then let such looke unto it that take it to be their honour and estimation to challenge one another into the field whereupon often ensueth murther for we have otherwise learned in the Scriptures Omnem cupiditatem seipsum ulciscendi vetitam esse That all desire for a man to revenge himselfe is unlawfull Simler For such doe usurpe the Lords office The
and shall never be laid unto their charge and so no concupiscence is mortall 2. There can be no reasonable coveting of another mans things for reason is grounded upon the law of nature against the which such concupiscence is therefore the coveting of our neighbours goods being a transgression of this morall precept is in it owne nature mortall but through Gods mercie in Christ both it and all other sinnes to the faithfull are veniall and pardonable and not otherwise 4. Confut. That Marie was not void of originall sinne and concupiscence FUrther Thomas Aquin hath another position Post peccatum propter corruptionem nullus evadit concupiscentiam praeter Christus virgo gloriosa c. After sinne entred because of corruption none can escape concupiscence beside Christ and the glorious Virgin Thom. in opuscul So the Rhemists All men are borne in sinne Christ onely excepted and his mother for his honour Annotat. Rom. 5. sect 9. Contra. 1. The Apostle saith Rom. 3.19 Whatsoever the law saith it saith to them which are under the law that every mouth may be stopped and all the world be culpable before God But Mary was under the law and culpable before God as others were Ergo the law also saith to her Thou shalt not covet 2. Againe the same Apostle saith The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we might be made righteous by faith Galath 3.24 But Mary was made righteous by faith for shee calleth Christ her Saviour in her song Luk. 1.47 Therefore the law also was a schoolmaster to her to bring her to Christ. 3. S. Paul further saith Ephes. 2.3 We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others He speaketh generally of all the faithfull therefore even Mary was by nature the childe of wrath and consequently borne in originall sinne 4. Divers infirmities are discovered in Scripture in the Virgin Mary as Luk. 2.48 her finding fault with Christ Matth. 12.46 her interrupting of Christ in his sermon Ioh. 2.2 her prescribing of the time to Christ to shew a miracle in turning the water into wine when Christ rebuked her saying Woman what have I to doe with thee All these infirmities doe shew that Mary was not void of originall sinne And therefore upon these reasons and testimonies of Scripture we inferre that Mary was conceived and borne in sinne as others are and Christ onely is excepted of whom onely the Apostle saith He was in all things tempted in like sort yet without sinne Heb. 4.15 As Origen also well saith Solus Christus sine macula Onely Christ was without spot Homil. 1. in Levit. See more also of this question Synops. Centur. 2. err 79. 5. Confut. Against the Romanists that it is impossible in this life to keepe the law of God NOw whereas the law restraineth the very inward concupiscence and corrupt desire herein appeareth the perfection of the law and how impossible it is for any in this life to keepe the law of God perfectly as the Apostle saith Rom. 7.14 We know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold under sinne There are two reasons why it is not possible to keepe the law both because it is spirituall not restraining onely the externall act but the internall spirituall motions and so is a most perfect rule of righteousnesse and for that we are on the other side imperfect full of weaknesse and corruption and carnall Here then is discovered another error of the Romanists That the precepts and commandements of God unto a man justified and in the state of grace are not impossible to be kept Concil Trident. sess 6. can 18. First then the truth concerning this point shall briefly be opened and then their objections answered First here we are to consider a fourefold state and condition of man 1. As he was created in a perfit state before his fall when it was possible for man to have kept the law and to have conformed himselfe in perfit obedience to the will of his Creator 2. But man considered in his corrupt nature before he be regenerate and restored can by no meanes keepe the law as the Prophet saith Can the blacke moore change his skinne or the Leopard his spots then may yee also doe good that are accustomed to doe evill Iere. 13.23 So the Apostle Whatsoever is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14.23 And We are not able of our selves to thinke any thing 2 Cor. 3.5 3. In the restored estate of man by regeneration and new birth the law is partly possible to bee kept partly impossible It is possible two wayes first by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ who hath fulfilled the law for us for he needed not fulfill it for himselfe as hee suffered not for himselfe for he was perfitly holy and just even from his conception communicatione justitiae divinae by the communication of the divine justice Marbach So the Apostle saith Rom. 10.4 Christ is the end of the law that is the fulfilling of the law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth Secondly the law is possible to be kept of the regenerate Quo ad inchoationem obedientia internae externa in respect of the inchoation or beginning of obedience internall and externall as the Apostle saith This is the love of God that we keepe his commandements 1 Ioh. 5.3 For he which without this beginning of righteousnesse that is without regeneration saith he knoweth and serveth God is a liar Vrsin This regeneration and inchoate obedience being wrought in the faithfull by the Spirit of God though it doe not wolly extirpate and root out sinne yet it keepeth it so under that it reigne not in them and it so renueth them that they labour to resist sinne and to live according to the law of God which obedience though it bee in it selfe imperfect yet is it accepted of God by faith in Christ in whose perfect righteousnesse whatsoever is imperfect in our obedience is perfected and our imperfections pardoned Marbach Yet even in the regenerate the law is impossible to be kept in respect of that perfection which God requireth and therefore the Prophet David saith Psal. 143.3 Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight shall none that liveth be justified 1. The faithfull doe both imperfectly keepe the law committing many things against it 2. Even in those things wherein they keepe the law they have some imperfections as the Prophet Isay saith 64.6 All our righteousnesse is as a stained clout Vrsin But there is great difference betweene the regenerate and unregenerate even when they sinne 1. Gods purpose standeth to save the Elect though they sometime slip so is it not with the other 2. Their repentance in the end is certaine so is it not in the unregenerate 3. Even in the sinnes of the regenerate there remaineth yet some seed of faith which is not utterly extinguished nor they wholly given over but the wicked
her chastity Latin Scilicet ablata that is taken away from her Gloss. interlinear Lyran. But the word ghoâ—ah signifieth no such thing Some read horam her time or houre which some interpret tempus nubendi time of marriage some the time of her service He shall not diminish her wages for her service Ex Lippomanâ— Some debitum conjugale understand and it of the marriage debt jus conjugale the right of marriage Cajetan Vatab. Concubitâ—m this lying with her Chalde so also Augustine Actum matrimonialem The matrimoniall act he shall not defraud her of for they which had many wives did not give unto every one of them their time as may appeare in the story of 〈◊〉 and Lâ—ah who purchased of her sister to Iâ—dge with her husband for her sonnes Mandrakes Genes 30. But beside that this were apparently to allow the use of concubines which no where the Law of Moses doth the word ghonah is not found in any such sense But it rather signifieth cohabitation or dwelling for the word maghon which commeth of the same root ghoa is taken for an habitation or dwelling so read Iun. Oleast Montanâ—â— The meaning then is that he shall allow her her food rayment and cohabitation or dwelling because he hath decâ—iâ—ed her of the hope and expectation of marriage So the Septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the which word Augustine understandeth 〈◊〉 ubi nâ—m lying with her but it rather signifieth conversation that is he shall suffer her still to cohabite and converse in the house not as his wife or concubine but now as a free maid and no longer a servant QUEST XXXI What those three things are mentioned in the text Vers. 11. IF he doe not these three c. 1. Some expound these three things to be these if the master that bought the maid will not take her for his wife nor give her to wife to his sonne nor yet reteine her as his concubine Ex Lyranâ— But this cannot be for these reasons 1. Because it would follow that it was by the Law allowed to take a maid to be ones concubine which was apparently a sinne and a transgression of the seventh Commandement Thou shalt not commit adultery 2. The sense and sentence should remaine imperfect it being not determined what should be done if hee refused to give her food rayment and dwelling if this clause should be referred not to the three things spoken of immediatly before but to those other there given in instance Tostat. quaest 12. 2. Augustine supposeth these to be the three if he neither marry her himselfe nor his sonne neither have defloured her then she shall goe out free quast 78. in Exod. But there is no mention made at all before of deflouring her but of 〈◊〉 her therefore this cannot be any of the three 3. The most doe make these the three things if he neither take her to wife for himselfe nor for his sonne nor yet suffer her to be redeemed So Macâ—ach Borrh. Lyran. Genevens But this exposition cannot stand 1. Because these three things mentioned must be all performed otherwise he must let her goe out free but these three were divers cases and are propounded disjunctively either the father to marry her or the sonne or to suffer her to goe out free 2. In this sense the text should imply a contradiction for if these severall cases before propounded be these three things whereof one is this that if the father doe not marry her himselfe he shall suffer her to be redeemed that is for money but here it is said she shall goe out free paying nothing so shee should goe out for money and goe out without money 4. Wherefore the fittest sense is and most agreeable to referre this clause to the three things going next before he shall not diminish her food apparell and dwelling Sic Tostat. Iun. Cajetan QUEST XXXII Whether maid servants were set free in the seventh yeere and not sometime before sometime after Vers. 11. SHe shall goe out free paying no money 1. She should be set at liberty not onely in the seventh yeere of remission but before si appareant in ea signa pubertatis if the signes of her womanhood appeared Lyran. And the reason is that if shee stayed still in servitude being apt for marriage and neither her master nor his sonne take her to wife she might be in danger to be defloured or else lose the time of her marriage passing over her virginity in service Tostat. So that such maids might be made free before the yeere of freedome came 2. But if the seventh yeere of redemption returned before the maid came to yeeres of marriage which the Hebrewes doe appoint at twelve then could not the master yet shew his liking or disliking of her and therefore such young maidens were not made free no not in the seventh yeere for all this Law is grounded upon this supposition If shee please not her master that is if he purpose not to espouse her to himselfe or to his sonne but this pleasing or displeasing could not appeare untill the maid were ripe and fit for marriage therefore in this case they expected rather the accomplishment of her ripe age than the approching of the seventh yeere Tostat. qu. 13. QUEST XXXIII The summary sense of this Law concerning maid servants NOw concerning the meaning of this Law in generall 1. Cajetane thus resolveth the whole Law this maid servant that is sold by her father unto her master is either incognita à Domini unknowne of her master or knowne if the first then may he sell her but not to any strange people if she be knowne and afterward displease either her master casteth her off and then he must give her a dowry as if she were his daughter or he purposeth to reteine her still as his concubine then hee shall provide for her meat cloth and dwelling Contra. 1. There is no liberty given to the master to sell his maid servant to whom he will but he must suffer her to be redeemed which was to be done by the next of the kin 2. When he had espoused 〈◊〉 to his sonne it is not like that he would then cast her out of the house and send her away with a dowry but reteine her still 3. And if it should be lawfull for him to keepe her still as his concubine then the Law should allow the use of concubines which is no where to be found 2. Tostatus and Lippoman agree with Cajetane in the first case of suffering the maid to be redeemed admitting that her master had not knowne her and in the two other of giving her to his sonne and of taking another unto her but herein they differ that Cajetane in the second case of espousing her to his sonne presupposeth an ejection and casting out of the maid espoused and so endowing her the other thinke she is reteined still Their errour then is in supposing that this maid is knowne of her
post poenitentiam That he which committed adulterie after publike penance should finally be denied the Communion In Hieromes time it seemeth that adulterie was punished by death who in a certaine epistle maketh mention of a young man qui adulterâ—i insimulatus ad mortem trahitur who being accused of adultery was led forth to death yet Augustine as is shewed before reasoneth against it but of all other Origen writeth most plainly Apud Christianos si adulterium fuerit admissum c. Among Christians if adulterie be committed it is not commanded that the adulterer or adulteresse bee punished with corporall death c. neither therefore was the law cruell then neither now doth the Gospell seeme to bee dissolute but in them both the benignitie of God appeareth yet by a divers dispensation then by the death of the bodie the people was rather purged from their sinnes than condemned but unto us sinne is purged not by corporall punishment but by repentance and it is to be seene unto lest our punishment be greater whose vengeance is laid up for the next world when as they were absolved from their sinne by the paying of the punishment as the Apostle saith how much more punishment is he worthy of that treadeth under foote the Sonne of God Two reasons Origen yeeldeth of this his opinion that there is now a mitigation of the rigour of Moses law because then it served as an expiation of their sinnes prefiguring the death of Christ as S. Paul applieth that sentence Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree which is generally delivered by Moses to the particular death of Christ Galat. 3.13 but now the expiation of sinne is by repentance and remission of sinnes in Christ. Againe now a greater punishment abideth the contemners of the Gospell even eternall in the next world and therefore corporall death is not so much inflicted now for God punisheth not twice for the same thing as Origen in the same place alleageth Yet although we contend that the capitall punishment of Moses law may now be dispensed with in some cases upon the reasons before alleaged this is not either to condemne those Common-wealths which doe reteine still and practise the severity of Moses law against adulterers who therein sinne not but as Ambrose saith of the Apostles that asked for fire to come downe upon the Samaritanes Nec discipuli peccant legem sequentes Yet did not the Disciples offend following the law neither to excuse those places where this sinne is too easily and lightly punished as Erasmus complaineth in his time Nunc adulterium lusus magnatum est Now adulterie is but a sport of great men Where adulterie is not capitally punished yet great severity otherwise should be used as it was decreed in the Elibâ—rin Councell that he which having a wife committed adulterie should be under penance five yeeres can 〈◊〉 He that did sinne that way after should not bee received to the peace of the Church till his dying 〈…〉 that did commit adulterie after penance should never be restored to the communion of the Chuâ—â—â— c. 7. These or such like severe constitutions this wanton and lascivious age hath need of that this overflowing sinne might be kept in with higher bankes than now it is So then I conclude this point with Cyprian who speaking of divers kindes of Ecclesiasticall censure used in divers places thus writeth Manente concordia vinculo actum suum disponit dirigit unusquisque Episcopus c. The bond of amity remaining still every Bishop so directeth and disposeth his owne act that he is thereof to give account unto God The like may bee said of Princes and Magistrates in their dominions and regiments that the difference in publike punishments all intending the glorie of God and the brideling of sinne is no cause to breake peace or breede jelousie betweene Christian states Now for the other part that Moses Judicials doe bind negatively that is where Moses Law inflicteth not death there Christian Magistrates are not to punish with death the reasons are these 1. Because then the regiment of the Gospell should exceed in terror the strictnesse and severitie of Moses Law 2. God is that one Lawgiver that saveth life and destroyeth Iam. 4.12 he gave life and he only hath right to take it away God hath created man in his image Gen. 9.6 which image is expressed in mans soule animating the bodie This image then is not to be defaced and dissolved but by warrant and direction from God therefore the equitie of the Judicials of Moses ought to be a rule either by generall direction or particular president to all Magistrates in what cases and for what sinnes they are to deprive the offendors of their life But here it will be objected that if this be so then all those Common-wealths are in error which punish theft by death which by Moses law is satisfied by making restitution Exod. 22.2 Ans. Even by Moses law some kinde of theft received a capitall punishment as if it were a violent theft as it was lawfull to kill a theefe breaking into the house Exodâ—s 22.2 or a wanton theft as David judged him worthy to dye that having many sheepe of his owne tooke by violence the onely sheepe which his poore neighbour had 2. Sam. 12.5 Likewise publike theft and sacrilege in Achan was punished by death Iosh. 7. But that simple theft when a man stealeth only to satisfie his hungrie soule or to supply his present necessitie should be proceeded against to the losse of life it seemeth hard And as I take it the lawes of this land have used a good consideration herein that such small felons should escape by their booke wherein to my understanding greater clemencie and favour in some Judges were more commendable who require an exactnesse of such simple clerkes unlesse they bee such as are worthy for other former evill demerits to be cut off as rotten members There is a saying in the law Favores sunt ampliandi Where favour is intended it should be the largest way extended It were also to be wished that a greater valuation were yet set than of the usuall rate in such small fellonies when a man is to bee judged for his life By Dioclesians law some kindes of theft are charged with restitution of foure fold by another authentike law the theefe is adjudged to bee beaten with clubbes By the Decrees Qui fecâ—rit furtum capitale c. Hee that committed any capitall theft as in breaking into an house in stealing a beast or some other thing of price if he were a Clergie man he was to be under penance seven yeeres if a lay man five if it were a small theft he was to make restitution and to doe penance one yeere By any of these or the like constitutions sufficient provision might be made against simple theft But it can no wayes be justified that such simple theft should bee more straightly
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
to bring in such an uncertaintie into the sacred storie as that we should never know in what order any thing was done 2. Beside the manner of speech used by way of transition vers 12. when the Lord began againe to speake of â—actifying the Sabbath afterward or then or further the Lord spake unto Moses c. sheweth that this speech followed immediately upon the other communing which the Lord had with Moses concerning the Tabernacle 3. The space of time even fortie daies while Moses communed with God sheweth that God had conference with Moses about more things than the morall and judiciall lawes rehearsed chap. 20 21 22 23. 4. And the second fortie daies was an unfit that for Moses to receive all these instructions in for then he fell downe 〈…〉 nights before the Lord Deut. 9. â—5 to intreat him for the people there was not then such opportunitie for Moses to receive those directionâ— all the time being 〈…〉 unto God Tostat. qu. â—3 QUEST XXII Why Moses stayed fortie daies with God in the 〈◊〉 WHen the Lord had made an end Which was after fortie daies 1. Because all this time needed not be spent in promulgation of the former lawes which might have been delivered in a shorter time the Hebrewes thinke that Moses further received then their Cabala which if they indeed did understand to be the mysticall doctrine of the Messiah they therein should not thinke amisse but the Jewish Cabala hunteth after letters and syllables and doth gather mysteries out of them which hath no warrant from Moses 2. During then this time beside the receiving of these lawes and instructions Moses no doubt was exercised in the meditation of them and made perfect in the sense and understanding thereof as likewise the mysterie of the blessed Messiah was now revealed unto him 3. And although the Lord by the illumination of his Spirit could in one day have inspired Moses with the knowledge of all these things yet it pleased God that Moses should continue in this exercise the space of fortie daies for these two ends 1. That he himselfe might hereby be more assured of his calling and by this continuall meditation be throughly prepared and made fit 2. And that the people by this miraculous worke of Moses abode with God fortie daies without meat and drinke might be induced to receive Moses message and ministerie with greater reverence Simler QUEST XXIII Why the Lord gave the written law HE gave him two Tables of the Testimonie 1. the Lord gave not the written law to the ancient Fathers but deferred it till Moses time because as the Apostle saith lex non est posita justiâ— the law is not given unto the righteous habebaâ—â— in semetipsis justitiam legis they had in themselves the law of righteousnesse but after that this law of righteousnes grew into oblivion extincta esset in Egyptâ— and was as extinguished in Egypt c. it was necessarie to be renued by the written law Irenaeus 2. Lex data est ut per â—am lux qua in nobis est accendatur c. The law was given that thereby the light which was in us should bee increased Cyril The light of nature being dimmed it was to be cleared and renued by the law 3. Ambros addeth further Lex quid operatur nisi ut omnis mundus subditâ—s fieret Deo c. What else doth the law worke but that all the world should bee subjected unto God c. for by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne 4. Hierom giveth another reason why the written law was given which was first written in all mens hearts because Iudei se solos accepisse legem gloriantur c. The Jewes only boast that they received the law hereby is signified that seeing the law commandeth nothing which was not before imprinted in the heart by the instinct of nature that they qui leges haâ— observavâ—riut c. which should observe these lawes should obtaine the reward c. whether they were Jewes or Gentiles as S. Peter saith In everie nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousnesse is accepted with him Act. 10.35 5. The law also was given to prepare men for the Messiah whose comming then more and more approached for two waies did the old law lead men unto Christ one way Testimonium de Christo perhibendo by giving testimonie of Christ as our blessed Saviour saith All things must be fulfilled which are written of me in the law the Psalmes and the Prophets Luk. 24.44 alio modo per modum dispositionis another way by way of disposing by drawing men from idolatrie and holding them to the worship of the true God and so preparing them for Christ Thomas QUEST XXIV Why the Lord gave the law to the Israelites and to no other people THis law was also given unto the Jewes rather than to any other nation 1. Not for that they only were found to continue in the true worship of God all other nations being given to idolatrie foâ— they also fell presently to idolatrie in worshipping of a golden calfe and the Lord telleth them that he did not set his love upon them for their righteousnesse 2. But the reason was because the Lord would performe his oath and promises to their fathers to make them his people Deut. 7.8 So it appeareth quod ex sola gratuita electione c. that onely by the free and gracious election of God the fathers received the promises and their children had the law given them 3. But if it againe bee asked why the Lord did chuse the fathers of whom Christ should be borne Augustine answereth Quare hunc trahat illum non trahat noli velle dijudicare si non vis errare c. Why the Lord draweth one and not another do not take upon thee to judge if thou wilt not erre 4. The law also was given unto the Israelites especially for these two reasons imponitur duris superbis c. it was imposed first upon them that were stubborne and proud De duobus enim naturalis homo superbit de scientia potentia c. A naturall man is proud of two things knowledge and abilitie or power Therefore because the Jewes might take themselves to bee wiser than other people as both having more knowledge and greater strength to do those things which were requisite God therefore gave them the morall law written both to shew their ignorance in the duties which God required as also their insufficiencie of strength imponebatur etiam lex bonis Likewise the law was given unto the good and well disposed that they thereby might be holpen to performe those duties which they desired To this purpose Thomas ibid. 5. Hierom seemeth to give another reason of giving the morall law unto the Israelites first the Lord gave them his morall law but after they had committed idolatrie than hee required sacrifices to bee offered unto him rather than to idols Auferens
of coveting 5. qu. Whether sinne properly consist in the internall or externall act 6. qu. The law of Moses did not onely restraine the hand but the minde 7. qu. Whether any morall and naturall duties were to be restrained by positive law 8. qu. Of the perfection and sufficiencie of the Morall law 9. qu. Of the abrogation of the law Questions upon the rest of this twentieth Chapter 1. QUest In what sense the people are said to have seene the voices which are properly heard and not seene 2. qu. What is meant here by voices whether the thunder or other voices 3. qu. VVhether there were a sound of the trumpet beside the voices 4. qu. Of the feare of the people and their going backe 5. qu. VVhy they desire that Moses would speake unto them 6. qu. VVhy the people are afraid they shall die 7. qu. How the Lord is said to come unto them and why 8. qu. How the Lord is said to tempt and prove his people 9. qu. VVhy the people stood afarre off and where 10. qu. How Moses is said to draw neere to the darknesse 11. qu. VVhy the Lord saith he spake unto them from heaven 12. qu. Why this precept is repeated of not making any graven image 13. qu. Of the meaning of these words Yee shall not make with me 14. qu. VVhy mention is made onely of images of silver and gold 15. qu. VVhy the Lord commanded an Altar of earth to be made 16. qu. VVhy the Altar was not to be made of hewen stone 17. qu. VVhy the lifting up of the toole is said to pollute the Altar 18. qu. How Jeremie is made to agree with Moses who saith the Lord commanded not any thing concerning sacrifices 19. qu. Of the difference betweene burnt offerings and peace offerings 20. qu. Whether it was lawfull to sacrifice in no other place than before the Arke or Tabernacle 21. qu. Whether it was lawfull to sacrifice before the Arke at the Tabernacle while they were asunder 22. qu. How long the Arke was severed from the Tabernacle 23. qu. Of the removing of the Tabernacle 24. qu. Of the places where it was lawfull or unlawfull to sacrifice 25. qu. How God is said to come and goe and how he is said to be in the world 26. qu. Whether it were not lawfull to goe up by steps to the Altar 27. qu. Why they were forbidden to use steps up to the Altar 28. qu. Of the abominable Idoll of the Gentiles called Priapus and the filthie usages thereto belonging 29. qu. Why the secret parts are counted uncomely Questions upon the one and twentieth Chapter 1. QUest Of the necessitie of the Iudiciall lawes 2. qu. The difference of the Morall Iudiciall and Ceremoniall lawes 3. qu. How the Ceremonials are abolished 4. qu. How far the Iudicials are now to be retained 5. qu. Why these lawes are called Iudgements 6. qu. How Moses propounded these lawes by speaking or by writing 7. qu. Why the Israelites were called Hebrewes 8. qu. How the Hebrewes became servants 9. qu. The difference betweene Hebrew servants and strangers 10. qu. Of three kinds of libertie and how servitude is agreeable to the law of nature 11. qu. How these six yeares are to be accounted 12. qu. The reasons why they ought to set their servants free 13. qu. Why the space of six yeares is limited for their service 14. qu. How the servant is said to come in with his bodie 15. qu. What manner of wise the master was to give to his servant 16. qu. Whether such separation betweene the servant and his wife were lawfull 17. qu. Why the servant was brought before the Iudges and what doore he was set to 18. qu. Of the divers kinds of punishments used among the Israelites 19. qu. What is meant here by Ever 20. qu. When the servant was to goe out free in the seventh yeare when in the fiftieth yeare 21. qu. Certaine cases put when the yeare of Iubile came before the yeare of remission 22. qu. Whether it were lawfull among the Israelites for the parents to sell their children 23. qu. In what sense it is said She shall not goe out as other servants 24. qu. Whether it must be read betrothed or betrothed not 25. qu. How shee was to be redeemed 26. qu. Why it was not lawfull to sell their maids to strangers 27. qu. What the meaning is of these words He hath despised her 28. qu. What kinde of betrothing is here understood 29. qu. Whether it were lawfull to take another wife to the former 30. q. Of the true reading and meaning of the 10. vers 31. qu. What these three things are mentioned in the text 32. qu. Whether maid servants were set free in the seventh yeare and not sometime before sometime after 33. qu. The summarie sense of this law concerning maid servants 34. qu. Of the end scope and intent of this law 35. qu. What kinde of smiting is here meant 36. qu. Why the murtherer was to die the death 37. qu. In what sense the Lord is said to offer a man into ones hand 38. qu. What places of refuge were appointed 39. qu. Why the Lord appointed places for such to flie unto 40. qu. What is to be counted wilfull murder 41. qu. Of the difference betweene voluntarie and involuntarie murder and the divers kinds of each 42. qu. Why the wilfull murderer was to be taken from the Altar 43. qu. What manner of smiting of parents is forbidden 44. qu. Of the grievous sin of paricide 45. qu. The law of manstealing expounded 46. qu. The reason why manstealing was punished by death 47. qu. What kinde of cursing of parents is here understood 48. qu. What manner of strife the law meaneth 49. qu. What punishment the smiter had if he which were smitten died 50. qu. VVhat should become of the smiter if the other died after he walked upon his staffe 51. qu. Of the equity of this law in bearing of the charges 52. qu. VVho should beare the charges if a servant had done the hurt 53. qu. VVhat servants this law meaneth and what kinde of chastisement is forbidden 54. q. The meaning of this clause For he is his money 55. qu. VVhether this law meane the voluntarie or involuntarie hurt done to a woman with child 56. qu. VVhether the death of the infant be punished as well as of the mother 57. qu. VVhether this law extendeth it selfe to infants which miscarie being not yet perfectly formed 58. qu. VVhy the action is given unto the husband 59. qu. VVhether the law of retalion be literally to be understood 60. qu. VVhether the law of retalion were just and equall 61. qu. Of servants freedome for the losse of an eye or tooth 62. qu. VVhat manner of smiting and goaring of a beast is here understood 63. qu. VVhy the ox that goareth was commanded to be stoned to death 64. qu. VVhy the flesh of the ox was not to be eaten 65. qu. In what case
of plants in growing and increasing of beasts in sense and moving of God and Angels in understanding 2. As God can doe all things by his power so man by wit reason and are doth compasse many difficult things 3. As God is the principall end of all things so man is the secondary end for whose use all things were created and he for the glory of God I will also set downe more at large the divers conceits of Augustine of this creating of man according to Gods image 1. He thinketh this image and similitude chiefly to consist in the soule and secondarily in the bodie because it was made to bee obedient to the soule and of an upright forme to behold the heavens lib. 83. quest 51. 2 Hee placeth Gods image in man in this that as all things are of God so all men had their beginning from Adam qu. 45. ex vet test 3. Hee thinketh this image to consist in mans dominion over the creatures de Genes cont Manich. c. 22. 4. The soule is like unto God because it is whole in the whole body and in every part thereof it neither increaseth nor decreaseth with the body 5. The soule expresseth the image of the Trinity in the understanding will memory which are three faculties yet make but one soule 6. The soule liveth by it selfe and doth also quicken the body as God quickneth all things 7. The soule beareth the image of God in reason the similitude of likenesse of God in charity lib. de spirit anim c. 39. Thus Augustine varieth placing this image sometime in one thing sometime in another But to put all out of doubt the Apostle sheweth how we are to understand the image of God in man Eph. 4.24 Which after God is created in righteousnesse and true holinesse Coloss. 4.10 Put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him This image then consisteth not so much in the substance of the soule or in the naturall faculties thereof as of understanding free will memory but in the knowledge and illumination holinesse and justice of the soule which are now wrought in man by grace and then were given by creation Our reasons are these 1. If this similitude and image were in the spirituall essence and substance of the soule both wicked spirits and wicked men should have the image of God for the substance of spirit and soule remaineth in them 2. Ambrose thus reasoâ—eth Deus non damnat imaginem suam c. God doth not damne his owne image or send it into hell fire c. but the soules of the wicked are damned ergo the image is not in the substance of the soule imago illa c. that image wherein thou wast made after the likenesse of God is not condemned but crowned Serm. 10. in Ps. 119. but the righteousnesse and holinesse of the soule only is crowned 3 That image after which men are naturally begotten is not the image of God for it were absurd if not impious to say that Gods image may naturally be propagated but men by nature receive the image of â—he â—â—asonable soule as Adam begat Seth in his owne likenesse after his image Gen. 5.3 that is like unto him both in soule and bodie wherefore the image of God consisteth not in the substance of the reasonable soule 4 That image of God after the which Adam was created is by his fall utterly lost and extinguished for otherwise this image need not to bee renewed and revived in us as it is by Christ as the Apostle sheweth Ephes 4.24 Coloss. 3.10 the fore-cited places but the substance of the reasonable soule with the naturall faculties and powers thereof are not lost therefore therein is not expressed this image To this purpose Augustine that the whole man both in his inward and outward part inveteravit is waxen old and decayed by sinne the inward man is renewed now by grace the outward man shall bee restored in the resurrection lib. 24. contr Faustum Epiphanius therefore had no reason to note this as an heresie in Origen for saying that Adam had lost by his transgression the image of his creation epist. ad Ioann Hierosol He might as well charge the Apostle with heresie who saith the newe man is renewed after the image of him that created him but there need no renewing where is not first a decaying nor a restoring of that which is not lost QVEST. XXIX Why it is added God created them male and female Vers. 27. THâ—â— God created man in his image c. 1. To take away all ambiguitie lest man might be thought to have beene created according to his owne image it is added in the image of God created he him 2. Thrice in the same verse Moses maketh mention of the creation of man left any might imagine with the Philosophers that man had no beginning but was eternall 3. Mention also is made of male and female that both man and woman should be knowne to be made according to Gods image though man first and as the more principall Iun. 4. And Moses saith he created them male and female not created him contrary to the conceit of Plato and some Hebrewes which thinke that Adam was at the first created both a man and woman and afterward divided in twaine Mercer QVEST. XXX Of mans rule and dominion over the creatures Vers. 28. RVle over the fish of the sea the foule of heaven and over every beast Theodoret thinketh that the great Whales were exempted from the dominion of man q. 20. in Gen. but his conceit is contrary to the text which giveth man rule overall the fish and Basil reporteth that he had seene great whirlpooles of the sea taken and subdued by the will and industrie of man hom 10. in Genes This rule and dominion of man was absolute before his fall for then both man should have beene of more excellent government by reason of his excellent wisdome to keepe the creatures in subjection and the beasts also by Gods providence should have had a naturall inclination to obedience a president whereof we have Gen. 2. when all the creatures presented themselves before Adam to receive their names of him Since Adams fall this preeminence and dominion of man over the beasts is greatly diminished and impaired that as he first disobeied his Creator so they also have cast off mans yoake yet not withstanding though now men have not so absolute a command over the creatures his Lordship and authority remaineth still which he exerciseth over the creatures by these foure wayes and meanes First there remaineth yet a naturall instinct of obedience in those creatures which are for mans use as in the oxe asse horse wherein Gods mercy appeareth that though man by his sinne be deprived of his authority over the wilde and great beasts as lyons beares yet the more necessary and serviceable creatures are kept in subjection still such a naturall
not evill that Adam in abstaining from that which was good might shew his humility to his Creator 2. In that God gave Adam so easie a precept to keep only to refraine to eat of one tree having liberty to use all the rest beside not like in hardnesse and difficulty to the commandement given to Abraham to sacrifice his only sonne herein the transgression and disobedience of Adam appeared to be the greater in transgressing a precept so easie to have beene obeyed This Augustine lib. 14. de civit dei c. 15. Thirdly we answer with Tertullian that this precept though in shew but easie and light yet containeth the very foundation of all precepts and of the whole morall law for therein was contained both his duty toward God in obeying his will and love toward themselves in escaping death which was threatned if they transgressed Tertul. lib. con Iud. So that in this precept Adam might have shewed both his love toward God in his obedience faith in beleeving it should so fall out unto him if he disobeyed as God said hope in expecting a further reward if he had kept the commandement The Hebrewes here are somewhat curious as R. Isaach that if they had tasted only of the fruit and not eaten it they had not transgressed but the commandements of God doe concerne the very thought R. Levi by eating understandeth the apprehension of things spirituall which is here forbidden but we take it rather litterally and historically that God giveth them so easie a precept to try their love and obedience Mercer QVEST. XXVI How a Law is not given to a righteous man BUt the Apostle saith The law is not given to a righteous man but unto the disobedient c. 1 Tim. 1.9 And Adam was now just and righteous and therefore he needed not a law for answer whereunto I say that the law in two respects is said not to be given to a just man 1. in respect of the negative precepts as to abstaine from murther theft adultery but in regard of the affirmative precepts to retaine them in obedience and doing of good workes so the just man had need of a law and so had Adam 2. A just man need not to feare the punishment of the law as S. Paul in another place saith of the Magistrate which is the speaking or living law he is not to be feared for good workes but for evill Rom. 13.4 And in this respect so long as Adam remained in his integrity and justice the punishment in the law concerned him not 3. And a righteous man rather of a voluntary disposition than by compulsion of law yeeldeth his obedience QVEST. XXVII Why God gave a precept to Adam fore-seeing before that he would transgresse it FOurthly A question will here bee moved why the Lord gave this precept to Adam which hee knew hee would not keepe for answer whereunto first wee say that God gave him a precept which was possible to be kept and Adam had power to keep it if he would it was then not Gods fault that gave him free will but his owne that abused that gift Secondly if it be replyed why God did not give him grace and stay him from transgression I answer that God could have given him such grace and to the Angels likewise that they should not have fallen but it was fit that God should leave the creatures to their free will and not hinder the course of nature which hee had made Thirdly though God foresaw mans transgression yet that was no reason to withhold the precept for then God should neither have made the Angels nor man because he saw that some of both should bee reprobates and by the same reason God should not have given his written word because many heretikes doe pervert it to their destruction Fourthly as God foresaw mans transgression so he knew how to turne it to good as in shewing mercy to sinners and in sending Christ to restore what man had lost so that notwithstanding Gods foresight of Adams transgression he was not to forbeare to charge Adam with this commandement in regard of the great good which God also did foresee should ensue QVEST. XXVIII What kind of death was threatned to Adam Vers. 17. IN the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death The first question here moved is what death God threatneth to Adam whether the death only of the body or soule or of both 1. We neither think that the spirituall death of the soule is here only signified whereby the soule is separated by sinne from God which was the opinion of Philo Iudeus lib. 2. de allegor Mosaicis and of Eucherim lib. 1. in Genes for wee see that the Lord himselfe threatned the death of the body to Adam Genes 2.19 Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt returne 2. Neither is the death of the body here onely implyâ—d as some have thought but the death of the soule by sinne also which bringeth forth the death of the body as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.13 Death went over all men for as much as all men have sinned There was first sinne in the soule before there followed death in the body 3. Neither doe we think that everlasting death is here excluded as Pererius seemeth to insinuate lib. 4. in Genes qu. 4. of this matter For the Apostle saith We were by nature the children of death as well as others Eph. 1.5 by Adams transgression we were the children of wrath hee therefore much more that made us so and if Adam had not by sinning made himselfe guilty of eternall death why was the promise of the Messiah presently upon his fall made unto him Gen. 1.15 whose office is to redeeme us from sinne and everlasting damnation 4. Wee therefore thinke with Augustine that by death here is understood whatsoever death either of the soule or body temporall or eternall lib. 1. de câ—vâ—â— dei c. 12. for Augustine maketh foure kinds of death the temporall death of the soule when it is for a time separated from God by sin the eternal death of the soule when it is separated from the body the temporall death of the body when it is separated from the soule the eternall death of the body in hell So Adam first died in soule by losing his innocency he died in body returning to dust he was subject also to everlasting death both of body and soule but from that he was redeemed by Christ. 5. Beside under the name of death are comprehended all other miseries calamities and sorrowes which are the forerunners of death so that we may fitly compare death to the center all other miseries as the circle or circumference about the center or as the Scripture resembleth it death is as the burning coale other sorrowes and miseries are as the sparkles that doe rise from the coale Iob 5.7 Man is borne to travaile as the sparkes flye upward QVEST. XXIX When Adam began to die SEcondly it is
their usuall food before the floud as it is now as seemeth to thinke Dominicus à Soto a Popish Writer for when as yet the earth and plants were not corrupted by the floud but retained their naturall force and vigour they yeelded more sufficient nourishment so that the eating of flesh was not then so necessary and as the more delicate use of some plants as the use of Wine by Noah was brought in afterward so much flesh of fowles and beasts did grow in request after the floud which was not covered before 5. Wherefore the sounder opinion is that not onely the eating of flesh was permitted before the floud but used not onely among the prophane race but with the faithfull though with greater moderation Our reasons are these 1. Because there is made no new grant neither in this nor in the rest as of multiplying and bearing dominion c. but onely the ancient privileges granted to man confirmed 2. The distinction of cleane beasts which it was lawfull for them to eat and the uncleane whereof they might not eat Levit. 13.8.3 It is evident by the oblation of Abel who offered the first fruit of his sheepe and the faâ— of them but it had beene no praise to Abel to offer the fatlings if he used not to eat of them it had beene all one to God whether to offer leane or fat but herein Abel is commended because he preferred the service of God before his owne private use and therefore Iustinus well collecteth Si anâ—e posuit Abel utilitatisâ—a Deum non dubium quia solitus fit ex labore suo utilitatem percipere If Abel did preferre God before his profit certainly he did reape profit of his labour and to the same purpose he alleageth that saying of the Apostle Who feedeth a flocke and eateth not of the milke thereof 1 Cor. 9.7 and by the same reason also of the flesh thereof 4. In that expresse mention is here first made of eating of flesh it is not as one well resolveth quantum ad usum in respect of the use sed quantum ad necessitatem in regard of the necessity The food of flesh beganne now to be more necessary because the plants and herbs had lost the first naturall vigour and strength QVEST. IIII. Whaâ— the meaning is of eating the flesh with the life or bloud 4. BVt flesh with the life thereof that is the bloud c. 1. This word anima in Hebrew nephesh translated life is taken foure wayes in Scripture first for man as the soule that sinneth shall die Ezek. 18. Secondly for the reasonable soule feare not those that can kill the body but cannot kill the soule Matth. 10. Thirdly it is taken for the inferiour part of the soule that is the affection as thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart and soule Matth. 22. Fourthly it is taken for the life as a good shepherd will lay downe his life for his sheepe Ioh. 10. and so it is taken in this place for the bloud is the seat and chariot of the life and vitall spirics 2. These words are neither figuratively taken as Eugubinus thinketh for the shedding of mans bloud because he that killeth a man seemeth to devour his flesh for in this sense the words should have no coherence at all with the former verse and where words may be taken in their proper sense without any inconvenience a figure is not to be enforced neither is it all one to eat flesh with the bloud thereof and to eat things strangled as Chrysostome collecteth for the Apstoles distinctly speake of bloud and things strangled Act. 15. Neither is the eating of live flesh here onely prohibited as Cajetanus conjectureth or of hot bloud as Mercer for from this bruitish kinde of food the very nature of man abhorreth and therefore it needed not so especially to be provided for by precept But here generally the eating of the bloud with the flesh is forbidden whether together with the flesh alive or dead or separated from the flesh as to drinke it or to eat it as now the use is in confected meats QVEST. V. Wherefore the eating of bloud was prohibited NOw whereas the eating of bloud was forbidden both before the Law and under the Law Levit. 17. and after the Law in the beginning of the Gospell Act. 15. it shall be profitable to consider the causes of this prohibition First it was forbidden before the Law 1. Not so much for decencie and comelinesse or for that bloud is a grosse and heavy food 2. But either that aforehand by these ceremoniall precepts mens minds might be prepared the better to beare the yoke of the Law which afterward should be promulgated 3. Or rather that by this precept of abstaining from bloud men might be the more terrified from the shedding of mans bloud sic Chrysost. Secondly this law was revived Levit. 17.11 12. whereof two reasons are given one civill because the life of the flesh is the bloud that they should forbeare from all shew of cruelty and so much the more detest the shedding of mans bloud the other religious because I have given the bloud to offer at the Altar the bloud the organ of life is holy unto God the Author of life and therefore they should not pollute or prophane it by devouring thereof Thirdly the Apostles did forbid the eating of things strangled and bloud 1. Not because among the Gentiles suffocated things were held to be the food of evill spirits as Origen writeth for it is not like that the Apostles would ground their decree upon such heathenish fantasies 2. Neither by bloud is homicide forbidden and by things suffocated uncleane as some thinke for the Apostles would not use obscure and mysticall tearmes in their decree and these things were already provided for by law among the Gentiles 3. Neither did the Apostles forbid these things onely to restraine intemperancie for many kinds of food are more delicate and to be defiâ—ed than these 4. But Augustine sheweth the true cause of this prohibition Quâ—dideo fâ—ctum est quia elâ— gere voluerunt Apostoli pro tempore rem facilem c. This was decreed because the Apostles for a while would chuse some easie thing not burdensome to the observers which the Gentiles might observe in common with the Iewes c. Thus Augustine disputing against Faustus This the Apostles did onely for a time lest the beleeving Jewes who could hardly all at once be removed from the legall rites might have beene offended at the libertie of the Gentiles but now this cause being removed and there being no such feare this decree also is expired QVEST. VI. How this prohibition dependeth of the former verse Vers. 5. FOr surely I will require your bloud c. 1. Which words are neither an exposition of the former verse as Eugubinus who by the eating of flesh with the bloud understandeth figuratively the shedding of mans bloud 2. Neither is the
was a time of abstinency 2. Neither as some that for the more speedy increase of the world children were borne in a shorter time as at 7. moneths 3 Nor yet that Elam and Assur might bee twins both borne at a birth 4. But I rather thinke that Arphacsad might be either the eldest of all or the second of Sems sonnes for the scripture observeth not the order of time in setting downe names as we saw before in rehearsing of Sem Ham and Iapheth QVEST. XVIII Why it is here omitted in the genealog of these fathers and he died FVrther whereas in the Patriarkes lives before the floud it is added and hee died which is omitted here 1. Some thinke it is to shew that Henoch died not a common death as the rest did 2. Some to signifie that none of them perished in the floud 3. Some yet are more curious aâ— Bahai who thinketh this clause and he died to bee here omitted because Messiah was to come of this line whom they hold to be immortall and further he prescribeth Messiah his age that hee should live 837. yeares before the end of the sixt millenary or thousand yeare which hee would gather by the letters of the word Lemarbaty used by the Prophet Isay 9.7 which is of the increase of his government there shall bee no end where the first letter lamed signifieth 30. men 600. râ—sh 200. beth 2. he 5. which maketh together 837. But it is evident to all the world how they are deceived for the six thousand yeare is expired within lesse than 400. yeares and yet their supposed Messiah commeth not and againe Messiah came as well of the line of the fathers before the floud as of them after the floud 4. Wherefore this is more like to bee the reason because then after Adams transgression Moses would shew how the curse tooke place thou shalt dye the death in those long lived patriarkes that although they lived divers hundred yeares yet in the end they dyed Mercerus QVEST. XIX At what age of Terah Abraham was borne Vers. 26. TErah lived 70. yeares and begat Abraham c. Terah lived 205. yeares and died in Charran at what time Abraham was 75. yeares old Genes 12.5 Abraham then was borne when his father was an 130. yeare old not in his 70. yeare for the reconciliation then of these places 1. We need not with Hierome that followeth therein the Hebrewes to say that Abrahams age of 75. yeares is not counced from his birth but from his departure from Vr. of the Chaldes and his miraculous deliverance out of the fire wherein they cast him because he would not worship their Idols for beside that this tradition of Abrahams deliverance hath no sufficient ground to warrant it a great inconvenience will follow it if it bee admitted that Abraham was an 130. yeare old at this time when he is said to bee but 75. which must of necessitie followe if Abraham were borne in the 70. yeare of Therah then it would follow that Isaack borne when Abraham was an 100. yeare old was borne 30. yeare before hee came into the land of Canaan which is contrarie to the Scripture or if they will count those hundred yeares also from Abrahams departure out of Chaldea and that he was indeed an 160. yeares old when Isaack was borne and Isaack was 40. yeare old his father yet living when he tooke Rebeccah to wife Genes 25.20 Abraham should have lived above 200. yeares whereas the Scripture saith he lived but an 175. Genes 25.7 2 Neither is it a sufficent answer that Abraham went out of Charran at 75. yeares of his age long before his fathers death and that Moses doth recapitulate the story afterward as Aben Ezra for Steven saith that God brought him out after his father was dead Act. 7.4 And to say his father was spiritually dead not naturally because he staied still and refused to goe into Canaan living in idolatrie which is the devise of one Andreas Masins cited by Pererius is a forcing of Stephens words which in an historicall narration must be taken properly 3. And with Augustine to make two departures of Abraham into the land of Canaan the one when Terah was yet living being an 105. yeare old and Abraham 75. sojourning there 60. yeares while his father lived in Charran and another after Therâ—hs death whome Abraham might visite before going and comming into Canaan but now he came from thence his father being dead and returned no more that in the first departure his bodie remooved but his affection was toward that place where his father was but now his affection and all was removed This imagination of two departures into Canaan dissenteth from Stephens narration Act. 7. where indeed he speaketh of two journeyes of Abraham one out of Mesopotamia the other out of Charan But into Canaan the Lord brought him after his father was dead v. 4. and not before 4. That also is a meere fancy that the rest of Abrahams age is concealed who should be an 130. when hee is said to be but 75. to this intent because God would keepe secret the end of the world Calvin for this would nothing have helped to the knowledge of that secret the account of yeares past will not tell us what yeares are to come and our Saviour saith the Angels know not of that day and yet they knew very well the age of Abraham 5. Wherefore the best solution is that Abraham though he be named first because of the privilege and preeminencie of his faith yet was not the first borne Terah at 70. yeares began to have sonnes but Abraham was not borne till the 130. yeare of his fathers age for he was but 75. at his fathers death who was then 205. So Noah is said to be 500. yeare old when he begat Sem Cham and Iapheth yet was not Sem borne till two yeares after Gen. 11.10 beside Sarah is held to have beene Abrahams brothers daughther Abraham then could not be the eldest brother for Sara was but 10. yeares younger than Abraham Gen. 17.17 Iun. QVEST. XX. Sarai not sister but neece to Abraham Vers. 29. THe father of Milcha and of Iscah c. 1. Some thinke that this Iscah was not Sarai Abrahams wife but that shee was rather the daughter of Thare and Abrahams owne sister by the fathers side than the daughter of his brother Aran and that it was lawfull then for the halfe brother by the fathers side to marrie his sister sic Clement Alexand. Lippoman Cajetan Scotus 2. Others thinke that Sarai was not the naturall but the adopted daughter of Thare 3. But the truer opinion is that Sarai was the daughter of Haran sister to Lot and Milcah and the same that is called Iscah as may appeare by these reasons thus thinke Iosephus and Augustine Iunius 1. It is like that as Nachor married the one sister so Abraham married the other because it was their great care not
were 4. Iunius placeth it neare unto Jerusalem being the same Valley where Absolon reared his Pillar 2. Sam. 18.18 and hereunto the Septuagint agree which interpret in the Valley of Melchisedeck And it seemeth indeed not to be farre off from Salem which is Jerusalem where Melchisedeck was King because he met Abraham there with bread and wine 5. It was not at this time but afterward called the Kings Dale Vatab. not because the Kings used there to exercise and disport themselves Chald. neither was it so named of some King Calvin but rather it was called the Kings Dale for the excellency of it and therefore is thought to be the same which was called Vallis illustris the famous Valley Perer. QVEST. XVI Who Melchisedeck was Vers. 18 MElchisedeck c. 1. Origen and Dydimus thinke that Melchisedeck was an Angell but the text is contrary that maketh him King of Salem 2. Some thinke that this Melchisedeck was the Holy Ghost which opinion is defended by the Author of the questions of the old and new Testament cha 109. which goe under Augustines name but it is none of Augustines worke for he numbreth the Melchsedechians among the Heretikes here 's 34. and it is an erronious opinion 1. For this Melchisedeck is said to be a Priest to the most high God but every Priest is taken from among men Heb. 5.1 2. If the Holy Ghost was a Priest unto God he therein should be inferiour unto God and so not God for in the God-head there is equality 3. Neither did the Holy Ghost ever descend from heaven to be incarnate but onely the sonne of God Ioh. 3.13 4. And whereas the Apostle saith that Melchisedeck was without father or mother and without beginning of dayes or end of life Heb. 7.3 whence they would enforce that Melchesedeck was not a mortall man but of an immortall nature the Apostle hath there relation onely to the story in this place Melchisedeck is not set forth in story by his kindred his birth and death he had both father and mother was borne and died but there is no mention made of it and so Hierome expoundeth that word used by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 genealogie is not expressed or mentioned 3. A third opinion there is that Melchisedeck was a King of Canaan and not of Abrahams line of which opinion were Irenaeus Eusebius Caesarion Apollinarius Eustathius as Hierome testifieth and among the new Writers Calvin Iunius Musculus Mercerus Pererius with others 1. Pererius urgeth that place Heb. 7.6 He whose kindred is not counted among them which proveth not that Melchisedeck simply was not of Abrahams kindred but that it was not so expressed in story 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius saith so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not rehearsed in genealogie here used by the Apostle is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without kindred vers 3. 2. And seeing Canaan was under Gods curse and Sem had the chiefe blessing how it is like that one of Canaan should blesse Abraham of Sem. 3. And the Apostle concludeth that Melchisedeck was greater than Abraham because he blessed him but none of the Canaanites which were the cursed seed could be greater than Abraham the father of the faithfull of blessed Sem. 4. The fourth opinion of the rest most probable is that this Melchisedeck was Sem which opinion is strengthned with many arguments 1. Sem onely of all men living was greater than Abraham as Syracides saith Sem and Seth were in great honour among the children of men 49.16 though Arphaxad Selah and Heber yet lived yet Sem was the most honourable in respect of his yeares his knowledge who saw the old world his prerogative in Noahs blessing and whereas Abrahams predecessors were Idolaters none of Sems progenitors are noted that way therefore seeing Melchisedeck was greater than Abraham and none then living was greater than Sem he is most like to be the Melchisedeck 2. That was the place of Sems dwelling whence in time Iapheths sonnes should learne to dwell in the Tabernacle of God so reasoneth Midras but from Sion came forth the law and word from Jerusalem Isay 2.3 at Salem therefore were the tents of Sem. 3. Hierome alleageth this reason used by some that Melchisedeck brought forth bread and wine to Abraham for his repast seeing he owed this duty to his grand-childe Evagr. tom 4. 4. Melancthon thus argueth therefore God brought Abraham to Sem the father of his ancestors to joyne together a notable company of the Church 5. Some use this reason A Kingdome is more ancient than a tyranny but unlesse we make Sem to be Melchisedeck we cannot plainly prove that a King reigned before Nimrod treat of Melchis 6. Melchisedeck is interpreted a King of righteousnesse this Melchisedeck had the knowledge of the true justice and righteousnesse by faith in Christ but in all the Scripture shall we read of none called to the faith but men acquainted with Abrahams house with himselfe or Isaacks line or the children of the East the sonnes of Keturah in the booke of Iob. 7. That this Melchisedeck a King of Canaan should bee Sem agreeth to the prophesie Gen. 9.27 Let Canaan be his servant 8. Also in that he is called a Priest of the most high God This also agreeth to Sem who had that prerogative of Priest-hood not as some Hebrewes thinke by his birth-right for Iapheth was elder but by his fathers blessing Blessed be the God of Sem who was more like to be this great high Priest of Sems God than Sem himselfe 9. Melchisedeck was King of Salem which signifieth peace and indeed this Salem had a speciall prerogative of peace for when the foure Kings smote other parts of the Countrey of Canaan as is set forth in this chapter it is not like that Salem should have beene spared if the King thereof had beene a Canaanite if there had not beene great respect to the person of aged Melchisedeck or Sem. 10. Where Melchisedeck is set forth without father or mother beginning of life or end of dayes this also most fitly agreeth to Sem who was borne before the floud whose father Noah was now dead who lived 600. yeares so that no man living at that time could remember his birth or death or parents 11. Seeing also that Hebers language was preserved in Salem as may appeare by the interpretation of the name of Melchisedeck It is most probable that this King of Salem was of that line who together with the true faith retained that holy language 12. Lastly seeing Melchisedeck was a type of Christ Psal. 10. that came of Sem and no type or figure of Christ is expressed in Scripture but of Sems line none is more like to be this representer and foreshewer of Christs everlasting Priesthood than Sem himselfe then living It is most unlike that any Priest not of Sem should shadow forth the high Priest Christ of Sem
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Perer. QVEST. XIX How the law held men in Servitude and bondage ONe which is Agar from mount Sinai which gendreth unto bondage 1. The one Testament which was given in Sinai is signified by Hagar which Sinai is out of the limits of the promised land and so are they strangers from the true Jerusalem that are not the children of Abrahams faith Calvin 2. The law is said to beget unto bondage not so much for that under the law all things were wrapped up in mystery and not revealed in such manifest sort as under the Gospel for so they are called servants that know not their masters will Ioh. 15.15 neither for that they were nourished with temporall promises as Abraham sent away the sonnes of Keturah but reserved the inheritance for Isaack But because the law held them in bondage under the hard yoke of ceremonies Act. 15.10 and they were kept in feare by reason of the curse and severe sentence of the law which they transgressed through the weaknesse of the flesh Perer. 3. Yet the law wrought not this effect upon all that lived under the law but only upon those that knew not the right use of the law which was to bring them unto Christ for many were in those times as Augustine saith Ministri veteris Testamenti haeredes novi though Ministers of the old Testament yet heires of the new QVEST. XX. How Agar is said to be mount Sinai Vers. 15. AGar is Sinati a mountaine in Arabia which is the better reading than to say Agar or mount Sinai for here Hagar is the type and mount Sinai which is taken for the law which was there given is that which answereth to the type 1. both because of the name which signifieth as they say the same thing in the Arabian tongue which Sinai doth 2. and the word Arabia signifieth also affliction humility 3. Sinai in respect of the site is without the land of promise 4. And Arabia with the inhabitants therefore lived in a servile state and condition and in this respect chiefly doth Sinai represent the law which bringeth a spirituall bondage Pererius QVEST. XXI How the mount Sinai is said to answer to Ierusalem Which answereth to Ierusalem that now is 1. not bordereth upon or is joyned to Jerusalem as the vulgar Latin and the B translation readeth for the contrarie is evident to him that beholdeth the situation of the countrey 2. neither because the way or journey is continued from Sinai to Jerusalem Aquinas 3. but in respect of the correspondency and similitude because the terrene and earthly Jerusalem retaining still the ceremoniall yoke of the legall ceremonies was held in spirituall bondage and servitude Beza Perer. QVEST. XXII Of Ierusalem that is from above Vers. 26. IErusalem which is above is free the mother of us all c. S. Paul setteth against the old testament and terrene Jerusalem the new testament and heavenly Jerusalem which is described by foure epithites 1. it is said to be from above because Christ the head thereof came from above Iohn 16.28 I came out from the father and because wee must have our conversation in heaven Philip. 3.20 2. It is called Jerusalem which signifieth the vision of peace It is free not with civill and outward freedome for many may be called being servants 1 Cor. 7.21 but it is free both morally in not being a servant or slave to the affections and desires of the flesh and spiritually in casting off all servile feare and celestiall liberty it hath in hope which shall bee an everlasting freedome both of body and soule 4. It is now the mother of us all and fruitfull of many children as Sarah at the first was barren but at the last brought forth Isaack whose seed was promised should be as the sand of the sea so she that was fruitfull the old Synagogue is now barren she that was barren the Church of God is now fruitful among the Gentiles according to that saying of Anna 1 Sam. 2.5 The barren hath borne many and she that had many children is feeble QVEST. XXIII Wherein Ismael resembleth carnall professors Vers. 28. THerefore brethren wee are after the manner of Isaack This then is the application which the Apostle maketh of this allegory 1. they which make account to be justified by the ceremonies or workes of the law are like unto Ismael borne of the bond-woman after the flesh they which belonged unto the faith of Christ are the childreÌ„ of promise by grace 2. As Ismael born of the bond woman persecuted Isaack so they which either live or teach after the flesh doe now persecute the servants of God as the Pharisies did the Apostles the Pseudocatholikes the professors of the Gospell 3. As the servant with her sonne were cast out for mocking of Isaack so the Jewes for deriding of Christ are cast out of the land of promise and so many as beleeve not in Christ whom they crucified are deprived also of the celestiall Canaan Perer. 4. Augustine further fitly expresseth this comparison betweene the carnall and spirituall Israelites by the history of Ionah resembling the Jewes envying the calling of the Gentiles to Ionah angry for the saving of Ninivie the ceremonies and carnall rites to the gourd that shadowed but for a time Christ to the worme that smote the gourd and removed the ceremonies bringing in true righteousnesse and everlasting comfort and refreshing 4. Places of doctrine 1. Doct. Christians may have their plentifull feasts so they take heed of excesse Vers. 8. ABraham made a great feast This feast was more than ordinary at the which some say Sem and Heber and King Abimelech were present but of the first two guests no likelihood because no mention is made of them afterward of Abimelechs presence there is more probability Muscul. Howsoever in that Abraham maketh such great preparation for this feast we learne that it is lawfull for Christians to have their solemne and joyfull feasts and meetings so that they take heed of excesse and that the creatures of God may not only be used for necessity but in plenty and alacrity so there be no sâ—perfluity Calvin For as bread was given for mans sustenance so wine is ordained to make the heart cheerfull Psal. 104.14 2. Doct. God is otherwise with his elect otherwise with men of the world Vers. 20. GOd was with the child and he grew God was with Ismael by his generall providence 〈◊〉 care in that he grew up thrived in the world and prospered but there is a more 〈◊〉 grace and favour toward the elect as our Saviour promiseth to be with his till the end of the world Matth. 28.20 and in this sense S. Paul saith God is the Saviour of all men but especially of them which beleeve 1 Tim. 4.10 3. Doct. Children ought not to contract marriage without the consent of their parents Vers. 21. HIs mother tooke him a wife out of the land of Aegypt This
with espousals contract consent of friends as Iacob tooke Lea and Rachel so did he not Zilphah and Bilhah the wife was taken into the house to be the mother of the family and governesse of the house the concubine was a servant still of the family as Hagar was to Sarah the wife was taken as an inseparable companion to the husband during his life the concubine might bee put away as Hagar was from Abraham the wife was chosen whose issue should onely be heires of the house but the sonnes of the concubine inherited not as the sonnes of Gilead said to Iephtah Thou shalt not inherit in our fathers house for thou art the sonne of a strange woman Iud. 12.2 2. Now where all these properties concurred she was properly and truly a concubine such an one was Hagar who was neither contracted to Abraham by any solemne espousals nor yet had the government of the house but was at Sarahs checke neither continued shee all her daies with Abraham nor her sonne admitted to be heire 3. But where all these properties are not seene together but some one of them there sometimes shee that is the wife by a certaine abuse of the word â—s called a concubine as the Levites wife before shee was yet solemnly espoused unto him with consent of her parents is called his concubine Iud. 19.1 for as yet she did commit fornication with him but afterward having her fathers consent he is called his father in law vers 4. so here in this place Keturah is called Abrahams concubine for that her children were not admitted to be heires with Isaack but otherwise she was Abrahams lawfull wife And for the same reason sometimes a concubine is called a wife as Zilpah and Bilhah are said to be Iacobs wives Genesis 37.2 because their children were coheires with the rest and fathers of the tribes 4. There appeareth then great difference betweene Hagar and Keturah Hagar was neither solemnly taken to be Abrahams wife but given him onely for procreation and while Sarah Abrahams lawfull wife was yet living shee remained a bond-woman still and was not made free she was cast out of the house But Keturah was solemnly taken to be Abrahams wife she was a free woman Sarah was now dead she left not Abraham while she lived wherefore Keturah was not properly Abrahams concubine but for that reason onely before alleaged But Hagar was verily his concubine as Leo well determineth Aliud est uxor aliud concubina sicut aliud ancilla aliud libera propter quod Apostolus ad manifestandum haruÌ„ personarum diseretionem testimonium ponit ex Genes c. A wife is one thing a concubine another a free woman is one thing a bond another and therefore the Apostle to shew the difference of these persons doth alleage a testimony out of Genesis where it is said to Abraham Cast out the bond-woman and her sonne for the sonne of the bond-woman shall not be heire with my sonne Isaack Leo epist. 90. c. 4. citatur par 2. c. 32. q. 2. c. 12. concil Triburiens c. 38. QUEST IX Why Abraham sent away the sonnes of Keturah ABraham gave them gifts and sent them away from Isaack c. The reasons of Abrahams so doing are these 1. because that countrey was not like to hold them Abraham knowing that his seed should exceedingly multiply Perer. 2. Abraham did it to take away all occasion of strife that might fall out betweene brethren as for that cause before Abraham and Lot were separated Calvin 3. lest that Isaack and his seed might have beene corrupted by their evill manners and false worship whom Abraham did foresee not to belong to the people of God Perer. 4. The greatest reason of all was because the inheritance of that land was promised to Isaacks seed which he would not have disturbed by his other sonnes Muscul. Mercer QUEST X. What East countrey Abraham sent Keturahs sonnes into SEnt them Eastward to the East countrey c. 1. Not Eastward in respect of Isaacks dwelling for some part of the land of Canaan was so towards the East 2. nor yet Eastward in respect of the situation of the world for so India is counted in the East whither indeed Hierome thinketh that they were sent but it is not like that Abraham would send his sonnes so farre off 3. They were then sent into the East countrey in respect of Palestina as into Syria Arabia where the Ismaelites Idumeans and Midianites inhabited which countries in the Scripture are usually called by the name of the East as Iacob going into Mesopotamia is said to goe into the East country Gen. 29.1 Balaam came from Aram out of the mountaines of the East Num. 23.7 Iob also is said to have beene the greatest of all the men of the East Iob 1.3 4. Into these East countries they were sent not because the people there were addicted to art magicke whereunto Abraham saw his sonnes inclined as the Cabalists coniecture but it is like that those countries to the which he sent them were as yet vacant and unpeopled Mercer QUEST XI Of the computation of the yeares of Abrahams life Vers. 7. THis is the age of Abrahams life 175. yeares Pererius upon this place gathering into a summe the storie of Abrahams life falleth into many apparent errours in Chronology which briefly shall be noted 1. He saith that Abraham was borne in the seventy yeares of his father Terahs age whereas it is cleare seeing Araham in his fathers two hundred and five yeare was seventy five yeares old Gen. 11.32 12.4 that he was borne in the hundred and thirty yeare of his fathers age 2. As one absurdity being granted many follow and one errour breedeth many so upon this false ground he buildeth other uncertaine conclusions as that Abraham was borne after the flood 292. yeares whereas he was borne 60. yeares after an 352. after the flood for so long after is the 130. yeare of Terahs age 3. He saith that Noah died in the 58. yeare of Abrahams age whereas Noah died 2. yeares before Abraham was borne 4. Further he affirmeth Terah Abrahams father to have died in the 135. yeare of Abrahams life whereas he must end his life sixty yeares before in the seventy five of Abrahams age for so old was Abraham when he went out of Charran whence he departed not till the death of Terah Act. 7.4 5. He proceedeth further in this his new coyned Chronologie that Abraham died in the 467. yeare after the flood and 2123. yeares after the creation whereas it was the 527. yeare after the flood and 2183 yeares from the beginning of the world wherein Abraham left his life 6. Further he saith that Abraham left Sâ—m alive behinde him whereas it is certainly gathered that Sâ—m died 25. yeares before in the 15â— yeare of Abrahams life and 502. yeares after the flood Genes 11.11 QUEST XII How Abraham yeelded up his Spirit Vers. 8. HE yeelded up the
for so saith he the word signifieth in the Punicke language but we must not fâ—tch the originall of an Hebrew word from another tongue 5. Wherefore the best reading is he found mules that is first coupled divers kinds together the â—e asse and the mare of whom came the mules thus the word is best interpreted though it be only found in this place both because the circumstance of the place giveth it for hee kept his fathers asses as also the thing may bee noted for the strangenesse of it being a mixture of divers kinds against nature and therefore the mules ingender not and forbidden also by Moses law Levit 19.19 Thou shalt not suffer thy cattell to gender with other kinds sic Musul Mercer Iun. Rupert Lyran. c. But Pererius misliketh this opinion though with no great reason QUEST XII Of Dishon and Aholibamah Vers. 25. THe children of Anah were these Dishon and Aholibamah c. 1. This Anah is not the same which in the verse before is said to have found out the mules but he is the fourth son of Seir named before vers 20. for the generation of Seirs seven sonnes is set downe in order It seemeth then as there were two called Anah one the brother of Sibeon vers 20. the other the son of Sibeon vers 24. so there were two women of the same name Aholibamah one the daughter of Anah Sibeons brother here mentioned the other the daughter of Anah Sibeons son the wife of Esau vers 2. so that this Aholibamah is not the same with the other as Iunius with some other Hebrews thinke 2. So Dishon here is the sonne of Anah the fourth sonne of Seir there is another Dishon also brother to Anah the fift sonne of Seir whose generation is expressed verse 27. there is a third Dishon or Dishan brother to this last Dishan the 7 sonne of Seir who is called Dishan vers 21. with this difference the first Dishon is written Dishon with van without jod the second the seventh sonne of Seir Dishan with jâ—d without van the third the sonne of Anah without either jod or van although this difference bee not alwayes kept for vers 26.28 they are both called Dishan with the same letters QUEST XIII Of the number and time of the kings of Edom. Vers. 31. THese are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom c. 1. The Hebrews are somewhat curious who against these eight Kings of the Edomites set as many kings of Iudah Saul Isboseth David Salomon Rehoboam Abia Asa Iehosaphaâ— during whose time there was no king in Edom but in the reigne of Ioram Iehosaphats sonne the Edomites rebelled and made themselves a king 2 King 8.20 that king of Edom in the time of Iehosaphat was no absolute king but a Viceroy deputed by the Iewes 1 King 22.47 Beside they note that Edom had 8. kings because Iacob 8. times calleth Esau Adonai Lord Mercer 2. He meaneth not those kings of Israel which succeeded after Saul as Mercer for there were many more kings in Edom before Saul was elected their king though I deny not but Moses by the spirit of prophecie did foresee that there should be kings in Israel as he describeth the duty of a king Deut. 17.3 Moses then meaneth before there was any certaine forme of government or supreme magistrate in Israel that is till his time who is said to be as a king Deut. 33.5 sic Aben Ezra Iun. though learned Mercerus mislike this opinion QUEST XIV Bela the sonne of Beor neither Balaam nor Balac Vers. 32. BEla the sonne of Beor 1. This neither could be Balaam that troubled Israel as some thinke who neither was a king nor yet an Idumean but a Syrian 2. Nor yet Balac as the Septuagint reade who was the sonne of Zippâ—r not of Beor and king of the Moabites not of the Edomites Mercer and this Bela being the first king of the Edomites was long before the time of Moses QUEST XIV Of what country and kindred Iob was Vers. 33. IObab the sonne of Zerah of Bozrah 1. This neither was Iob that famous man for his patience whose book is canonicall as thinketh Tostatus and it is affirmed by the Septuagint in the end of Iob that he was this Iobab the sonne of Zerah the sixt from Abraham for there is great difference in the names Iob is written with aleph in the beginning but Iobab without aleph Mercer Againe Iob dwelt in the land of Huz but this Iobab was of Bozrah in the confines of Moab and Idumes neither can it be gathered that Iob was a king though hee were a man in authority for his wisdome and justice 2. Some affirme Iob to be a Canaanite and apply that place Numb 14.9 where it is said of the Canaanites their shield is gone from them unto Iob who while he lived by his righteousnesse delivered Canaan R. Salomon 3. Cajetan thinketh that Iob was an Arabian of Arabia-Petrâ—a But it is not like that Iob so vertuous a man came of cursed Cham the father of the Canaanites and Arabians and all the rest of Iobs friends were either of Abraham Nachor or Esâ—u whom hee calleth his brethren 4. Neither was Iob of the posterity of Naeâ— or Abrahams brother which is the opinion of Hierome Lyranuâ— with some others for though Huz were one of Nahors sonnes yet it is more like that the first Huz the sonne of Aram of Sem Genes 10.22 gave denomination to Iobs country and as Elihu one of Iobs friends was a Buzite of Nahor Iob. 32.2 so Bildad was a Shuite of Abraham by Keturah Eliphaz a Temanite of Esau therefore that concludeth not that he descended of Nahor 5. Nor yet doe I thinke that Iob was of the posterity of Esau which is the common opinion of Chrysost. Augustine Theodoret and of the new writers Mercer Perer. with others 1. For though the daughteâ— of Edom be said to dwell in the land of Huz Ier. 4.21 because Edom had so farre extended their habitation yet they were two divers and distinct countries in themselves as may appeare Ierem. 25.20 21. where Huz and Edom are named asunder 2. And what though Eliphaz one of Iobs friends be a Temanite of Esau so was Eliâ—u a Buzire of Nahor 3. Neither is it like that Huz the sonne of Dishan the Horite that dwelt in the land of Seir before the Edomites Genes 36.28 gave that name unto Iobs country which is Tostatus opinion but of the first Huz of Aram as is before said was that country so called Iun. 4. I thinke it therefore more probable that Iob came of Abraham by Keturah as Bildad the Shuire was of Shuah Abrahams sonne by Keturah whom with the rest Iob calleth his brethren And these sonnes of Keturah are said to be sent into the East country Genes 25.6 and Iob is said to be the greatest of all the men in the East Iob. 1.3 Abraham also had a greater care to instruct his sons and to
Covagnan sometime be used appellatively for a merchant Prov. 31.24 But he was a Canaanite as we reade the like of Simeon that he had his sonne Saul by a Canaanitish woman Gen. 46.10 Mercer 3. No marvell then if Iudah matching into the cursed stocke of Canaan whose land was promised to Abraham and his seed which Iudah could not be ignorant of had no good successe in his children the fruits of this marriage who also were accursed of God Calvin 4. Iudah saw this woman he tooke her and went in to her all was done in haste so that his affection carried him headlong his judgement did not guide him Muscul. QUEST V. Er and Onan whence and upon what occasion so called Vers. 6. IVdah tooke a wife to Er his first-borne 1. Though Iudah tooke him a wife without the consent of his father yet he will not have his sonne so to doe Muscul. 2. Whence he is called Er it is not certaine some will have it to signifie watchfull Augustine doth interpret it pelliceus to have his name of skinne or leather such as Adam was cloathed with in token of his transgression lib. 22. cont Faust. cap. 84. Isaack Carus will have all these three sonnes to be named from Iosephs calamity Er because Ioseph was in a manner desolate or destroyed of gnariri Onan of the griefe of their father Shelah of the errour which Iudah committed in selling of Ioseph Ramban thinketh Onan to be so called of the paine of his mother in travell as Rachel called Benjamin Ben-oni and Shelah of his mothers errour in ceasiâ—g to beare afterward But if it bee lawfull to use conjectures I thinke upon what occasion soever they had these names given at the first that the event answered their names for Er was solitary without children Onan had a lamentable end and about Shelah Iudah committed a great errour with Thamar 3. Iudah gave Er his name the mother named the other two not that as the Hebrewes note the father did alwayes name the first-borne the mother the rest for as we saw before in Iacobs sonnes sometime the father sometime the mother indifferently gave the name but not without the consent of the father Mercer 4. Concerning Thamar some Hebrewes would have her the daughter of Seâ— the high Priest Melchisedeck because Iudah judgeth her to be burned according to the law of the Priests daughter committing fornication Levit. 21.8 but seeing Sem died ten yeare before Iacob he lived not to the 50. yeare of Iacobs as Mercerus it cannot be that Thamar a childe-bearing woman should bee his daughter Iacob being at the least an hundred yeare old It is like she was a Canaanitish woman Luther and a vertuous woman that did leave and forsake the idolatry of her Countrey to worship the true God Perer. ex Philone QUEST VI. Of the sinne of Er what it was Vers. 7. NOw Er was wicked in the sight of the Lord. 1. The wickednesse of Er was not as Augustine supposeth in being given to oppression or cruelty lib. 22. cont Faust. cap. 34. but it is like to be the same sinne of unnaturall lust which Onan committed as may be gathered both by the likenesse of the punishment as by the phrase that he was wicked in the sight of God as it is said of the Sodomites Gen. 13.13 his sinne was not secret as Tostatus but it was a sinne very hainous and grievous against the order of nature and institution of God for he abused himselfe and spoiled his seed not because he would not have any issue by a Canaanitish woman as Mercer for then he needed not to have maried her but rather as the Hebrewes conjecture that hee might long enjoy the beauty and favour of Thamar which would be impaired by bearing of children or some such like cause 2. So then this sinne was against nature which is diversly commited either alone when men doe vitiously procure and provoke their seed or with others either of a divers kinde as with bruit beasts or with the same kinde but not the right sex as with the male or with the right sex that is the female but not in due manner which was the sinne of Er and Onan 3. This sinne of Er was against the order of nature using the act of generation for pleasure onely and not for generation it was against God whose institution he brake against his wife whom he defrauded of the fruit of her wombe against himselfe in preventing his issue against mankinde which should have beene increased and propagated Perer. 4. Yet Onans sinne was not lesse than Ers as Augustine thinketh who maketh Er of that sort of wicked men that doe evill to others Onan of that kinde that doe no good to others but herein Onan exceedeth the wickednesse of Er both because he was not warned by his brothers example as Daniel reproveth Belthasar because his heart was not humbled by the fall of Nebuchadnezer his father Dan. 5.22 As also for that Onan committed this sinne of envie against his brother to whom hee should have raised seed whereas Er did it not of envie but of an immoderate desire of pleasure Perer. QUEST VII Whether in any case it were lawfull by Moses law for one to marry his brothers wife Vers. 8. IVdah said c. goe in to thy brothers wife Here a question is moved whether it were lawfull by Moses law for the brother to marry his brothers widow to raise up seed to his brother 1. Philo thinketh that it was not onely lawfull among the Israelites but that it was the custome so to doe among the Canaanites and that the Judges of the Countrey did give Thamar to Onan after the death of his brother Er but the contrary is evident out of the text for Iudah and not the Judges of the Countrey gave Thamâ—r to Onan And I thinke rather that it was a custome received among the fathers and afterward confirmed by Moses law than any usage learned of the Canaanites whose fashions they were not to imitate 2. Neither doe I thinke with the Hebrewes that Iudah was the first that brought in this kinde of marriage though hee be first mentioned but that he had received that custome from other of the fathers 3. Wherefore it seemeth that Moses gave liberty to the next brother to take the wife of his brother that departed without issue and not to the next removed kinsman onely that was without the compasse of the Leviticall degrees and so some expound that law Deut. 25.5 sic Genevens upon that place D. Fulk in 6. Mark annot 2. But the other sense approved by Mercerus Calvin Iunius which understand it of the naturall brother seemeth more probable for these reasons 1. Because the first president of such marriages is taken from this place where one naturall brother succeedeth another in taking his wife 2. The word used in the law Deut. 25.5 jabam signifieth not to doe the office of a kinsman but
that can save and destroy Iam 4.12 Onely God that gave unto man his life hath power to take it away and therefore otherwise than God hath given direction either by particular precept or generall rule the life of man is not to bee taken away 3. And seeing Magistrates are but Gods Ministers Rom. 13.4 they must execute justice according to his will for it is required of a disposer that he bee found faithfull 1. Cor. 4.2 but Gods will otherwise appeareth not than in his word 4. And seeing whatsoever is not of faith that is firme perswasion is sinne Rom. 14.23 and faith must be grounded upon the word as being wrought by the word Rom 10.17 how can the Magistrate approve his acts of justice as in the sight of God unlesse hee can warrant the same by the word 2. Neither yet can I consent with those which thinke that the punishment inflicted by Moses for the breach of the morall law together with the morall law is imposed upon Christian Magistrates as it is not lawfull to punish adulterie otherwise than by death nor simple theft by death but by restitution Piscator praefation in Exod. for if this were so then the Gospell should overthrow the policie and institution of divers Common-wealths which of a long time have continued but God is the author of peace not of confusion 1. Cor. 14.33 2. Mardoche and Daniel having place of government under the Persian Kings did no doubt minister justice according to the lawes of that countrey 3. Our Saviour Christ commanding to give tribute to Caesar and injoyning obedience to the higher powers which did beare the sword and that for conscience sake Rom. 13. seeme to give approbation to the lawes of nations maintaining right and tending to equity 4. Our Saviour himselfe observed not the judicials belonging to the morall law for whereas he that gathered stickes upon the Sabbath was stoned to death by Moses yet out Saviour excuseth and defendeth his Apostles who did as much as the other in rubbing the eares of corne for their necessity Matth. 12. yea hee giveth a rule that for fornication onely and adulterie it was lawfull for a man to put away his wife Matth. 19. which exception needed not if either in fact then or in right afterward adulterers and adulteresses were to bee punished by death If it be answered that Christ tooke not upon him the office of the Civill Magistrate to impose corporall punishment yet would not our Saviour have defended his Apostles nor yet by silence have left them unreproved for neglect of the law 3. Wherefore the best resolution is that the morall judicials of Moses do partly bind and partly are left free they do not hold affirmatively that we are tied to the same severity of punishment now which was inflicted then but negatively they doe hold that now the punishment of death should not be adjudged where sentence of death is not given by Moses Christian Magistrates ruling now under Christ the Prince of peace Isai. 9. that is of clemencie mercie may abate of the severitie of Moses law mitigate the punishment of death but they cannot adde unto it to make the burthen more heavie to shew more rigour than Moses becommeth not the Gospell to extend more favour is not unbeseeming of these two assertions my reasons are as followeth 1. That which Ambrose urgeth out of the mouth of Luke how our Saviour reproveth his Disciples because they would have had fire come downe upon the Samaritanes upon the which example hee thus inferreth Ostenditur nobis non semper in eos qui peecaverunt vindicandum quia nonnunquam amplius prodest clementia tibi ad patientiam lapso ad correctionem It is shewed us that alwayes vengeance is not to bee taken of those that offend because oftentimes clemencie is more profitable for patience in thee and amendement in the offender And this collection is ratified by the answer of our Saviour in that place The Sonne of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to sâ—ve them Luk. 9.55 2. Augustine urgeth the example of Christ who suffered the woman taken in adâ—â—tery to escape without punishment of death Ioh. 8. Whereupon hee inferreth that the adulter◠〈◊〉 not now to bee put to death but to live rather to be reconciled to her husband or to come 〈…〉 the usuall answer is that our Saviour doth not here abrogate the Law against adultery 〈◊〉 only to meddle with the Magistrates office Piscator Ans. Neither doe wee say that Christ abrogateth that law but leaveth it free and taketh away the necessitie of it And though Christ exercised not the Magistrates office in his owne person yet in this case it had not beene impertinent to have given direction to have her before the Magistrate as in another case he sendeth the leper to the Priest Matth. 8.4 if it had pleased him to impose still the severitie of the law yea our Saviour sheweth by his answer Let him that is amongst you without sinne cast the first stone at her Ioh. 8.7 that hee would not have them such strait executors of the rigour of Moses law upon others but rather to bee severe judges of themselves and with charitable affection to support the frailty of others to the which themselves were subject 3. Further the difference betweene the times of the Law and of the Gospell must be considered then they received the spirit of bondage to feare but now the spirit of adoption Rom. 8.15 then they which came neere the mount where the morall Law was given were stone or stricken thorow with darts whether man or beast Heb. 12.20 but it is not so now then the bloud of Abel cryed for vengeance but the bloud of Christ now calleth for mercie and so speaketh better things than that of Abel Heb. 12.24 Therefore to mitigate the severitie of Moses Law in some cases yet not leaving sinne unpunished nor by connivence cherishing the same it is more sutable to the profession of the Gospell of peace and mercie Wherefore I here say with Chrysostome Vbi paterfamilias largus est dispensator non debet esse tenax Where the master of the house is bountifull the steward must not be sparing Melius est propter misericordiam rationem reddere quà m propter crudelitatem It is better to be called to account for too much pitie than for cruelty 4. The continuall practice of the Church sheweth as much that the rigour of Moses judicials is mitigated S. Paul willeth the incestuous man only to be excommunicate 1. Cor. 5. it seemeth then there was no law in force to put such to death nor in Cyprians time who thus writeth Quidam episcopi in nostro provincia c. Some Bishops in our province have altogether shut up penance against adulterie Nor after that in the time of the Eliberin Councell which was held under the reigne of Constantine where it was decreed can 9. Moechatus
doth not here signifie the Sabbath which was the seventh day but it is taken for any festivall day of rest and may here bee translated the morrow after the rest Iun. because upon the first day of the pasch they were commanded to rest 5. This they did in presenting their first fruits unto God both for remembrance of that time when they came out of Egypt which was in the moneth Abib the moneth of new fruits as also to stirre them to bee thankfull unto God and to acknowledge him to be the giver and author of their abundance and plentie Pererius QUEST XXVI Whether the seventh day were more solemne than the first Vers. 16. ALso in the seventh day shall bee an holy assemblie Here the solemnitie of the first and seventh day seeme to be alike But Levit. 23.8 the Latine translator readeth thus Dies septimus erit celebrior sanctior The seventh day shall bee more solemne and holy Unto this objection divers answers are framed 1. It is called holier because this day is by speciall words called a day of restraint or of a solemne assemblie Deut. 16.8 Wherein it being the last day of the Feast there was a great assemblie of the people gathered together to praise God So in the same sense the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles is called the great day Ioh. 7.37 2. Others answer that it was greater not in comparison of the first day but of the other comming betweene Lyran. 3. But the best answer is that in the originall there is no degree of comparison but as it is said of the first day there shall be therein an holy convocation so it is said of the seventh Thâ—â—e shall bee an holy assemblie or convocation Perer. So here a question is moved questionlesse and needlesse 4. Now the reason why the first and the seventh day were more solemne than the rest may be this because on the first day of the Passeover they went out of Egypt and on the seventh day they passed through the red sea and these two dayes in remembrance of these two great benefits they kept with greater solemnitie this generally is the opinion of the Jewes and the reasons to confirme it may be these two first because as in the first day there was an holy convocation so also was there on the last when Moses and all Israel gave solemne thanks unto God Exod. 15. And beside the manner and order of their travell agreeth thereunto for on the 15. day they came to Succoth on the 17. to Ethom to Pi-hahiroth or the mouth of Chiroth on the 18. day there they staied where Pharaoh overtooke them the 20. and the night following they went over the red Sea Iunius QUEST XXVII Why the seventh day is called a day of restraint Deut. 16.8 BUt whereas it is said Deut. 16.8 on the seventh day of the paschall solemnitie shall be a restraint oâ— solemne assemblie where the Latine translator readeth collecta there shall be a collection here ariseth a question about the meaning of these words 1. They which defend this translation some doe expound it of the collection which was made toward the expences of the temple Thomas But against this sense both Lyranus his reason may bee urged because the morrow after the pasch it was lawfull for the people to returne home Deut. 16.7 and therefore it is not like that collection was made after their departure as also Paulus Burgensis sheweth out of the sentence of the Hebrewes that collection was used to be made for the temple throughout all Palestina upon the first day of the twelfth moneth Pererius also alleageth that place 2 Chron. 7.8 that Salomon Fecit die octava collectam Made a collâ—ction upon the eight day but saith he it is not like that so rich a King as Salomon made any collection of mony Therefore Pererius interpreteth it of the solemne collection and gathering together of the people upon that day to give God thanks solemnely and publikely for their mightie and glorious deliverance out of Egypt But all this businesse will soone be at an end if the vulgar Latine interpretation be refused as not so agreeable to the originall word which signifieth rather a restraint as even now shall be shewed 2. The Septuagint also are as wide which doe translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the going out because then the Feast was at an end but this is not the meaning of the word though it be true that then the people were dismissed as Salomon upon the eight solemne day of the Feast of Tabernacles sent away the people 1 King 8.66 having kept that day as a time of restraint 2 Chron. 7.7 at even he gave them leave to depart for so these places are reconciled 3. Therefore the meaning rather is that it was a time of restraint the people were kept and restrained from worke upon that day so the word ghatzer signifies to forbid or restraine Lyran. Montan. Iun. And though the first day also were a day of restraint wherein they were forbidden all worke save about their meat yet it seemeth that this was the greater day being the conclusion and determination of the Feast as these two are joyned together the last and great day of the Feast Iohn 7.37 as iâ— shewed before QUEST XXVIII Why he which did not eat unleavened bread was to be cut off Vers. 19. THat soule shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel 1. Some doe expound this onely of the capitall punishment that such as neglected or contemned this observation of unleavened bread should be put to death and so is this phrase taken Exod. 30.33 and 31. vers 14. and in other places Simler Piscat But though it be not denied that in some places this phrase to bee cut off from Israel signifieth onely the taking away of the life of the offender as in the places given in instance yet alwayes it is not so taken for Genes 17.14 it signifieth the cutting off from the societie and the communion of the Saints both in this life and in the next as may appeare by the reason there given because he hath transgressed my covenant 2. Neither is it referred onely to the spirituall punishment as Osiander expoundeth this place by that of the Apostle that he which eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation 1 Cor. 11.29 for under the law the punishment of death was used in the like transgressions in the contempt of the law as for violating the Sabbath 3. Therefore this sentence pronounced against such contemners includeth a penaltie both upon the bodie and the soule and of this strict severitie two reasons may be given the one from the authoritie of the law-maker God that gave us both bodies and soules and all other good things beside hath power to make lawes both to binde the bodie and the soule and the contempt of his Commandements is worthie of capitall punishment the other reason is taken from
Israelites asked these things were such as cohabited among them it is evident both because every one is bidden to aske of his neighbour chap. 11.2 and for that they being in haste could not upon the instant of their departure goe farre to fetch any thing 2. Neither yet is Oleasters opinion probable that few of the Israelites had their proper and severall houses and dwellings but most of them were servants in the Egyptians houses as the Saracens and Mores are in Spaine and so they asked jewels of their mistresses as the use is in Spaine in their festivals to attire themselves with jewels and other ornaments and so Oleaster would expound these words chap. 3.22 Every woman shall aske of her neighbour and of the stranger or sojourner of her house of her in whose house shee was a stranger not of the stranger in her house Contra. 1. It is not unlike but that many Hebrew men and women were servants with the Egyptians and that they also had favour with their masters and mistresses but that most of them had their proper houses it may thus appeare both because it is said Gen. 47.27 that they dwelt in Goshen and had their possessions there and beside whereas they were commanded to take a lambe for every house this could not have beene done conveniently in the Egyptians houses that would not have suffered them to kill a lambe or goate for sacrifice which thing they abhorred and to what purpose served that note of distinction to marke their houses with bloud if the Israelites and Egyptians had for the most part cohabited together in one house 2. The word gerah sojourner of her house may be either taken for the neighbour or dweller next the house as the Chalde Paraphrast and as Augustine taketh it for cohabitation not in the same house but in the same place quest 39. in Exod. or else it may bee taken for cohabitation in the same house as the Septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall aske of the cohabiter in the house as the word is taken for an inhabitant Iob. 28.4 So that they had two sort of neighbours to aske of either they which dwelt in the next houses or that sojourned with them in the same house But it cannot be understood of the Hebrewes sojourners and servants in the Egyptian houses for mention is made of their sonnes and daughters whom they should put their jewels upon it is not like that being servants they had sonnes and daughters borne in the Egyptians houses 3. Therefore the Egyptians of whom the Israelites asked these Jewels were their neighbours chiefly and acquaintance as they are called by the name of reagh a companion a friend yet other Egyptians also might give them to hasten them away as Iosephus sheweth that the Egyptians bestowed upon them for these two reasons Alii quo celerius discederent alii propter vicinitatis consuetudinem Some that they might be gone the sooner other because of their neighbourhood and acquaintance 4. As they were the Egyptians their neighbours whom they chiefly asked of so they that asked were both men and women chap. 11.2 but the women are only mentioned chap. 3.22 because the Jewels and ornaments which they asked specially belonged to the care of women Simler 5. And though jewels of silver and gold and rayment only be mentioned yet they had other precious things beside as scarlet purple silke fine linnen precious stones for whence else should the Israelites have those things which afterward they bestowed upon the Tabernacle Simler And they received these precious things in such abundance of the Egyptians that they did put them upon their sonnes and daughters that is not only adorne them therewith but loaded them Calvin QUEST XLVIII Of the mysticall application of the Israelites spoiling of the Egyptians NOw for the mysticall sense and spirituall application of this enriching of the people of God with the ornaments of Egypt 1. Augustine understandeth it of the liberall arts and commendable humane sciences which were invented by the heathen but taken from them as the spoile of Egypt and converted to the true service of God and the setting forth of Christian religion The idolatrous and superstitious inventions of the heathen hee resembleth to the lumber and cumbersome things of Egypt which the Israelites did not meddle with the Artes and Sciences to the jewels and ornaments which were conveyed over from the superstitious Egyptians to the people of God As hee giveth instance of Lactanâ—iuâ— Vâ—ctorinus Hilarius and before them of Cyprian Quanto auro argeâ—to veste suffarcinatus exierit ex Egypto With how much gold and silver and raiment was he loden when he came out of Egypt that is when he was converted from Paganisme to the Christian faith 2 This Porphyrius as Eusebius writeth objected against Origene that he borrowed of them to set forth the fables of his religion as he impiously calleth them Graecorum doctrinam ad peregrinas commentitias Iudâ—orum fabulas confirmandâ—â— tanquam subsidium sibi comparavit He tooke as an helpe unto him the learning of the Grecians to confirme the strange devised fables of the Iewes As hee sheweth how he was conversant in the writings of Plato Numenius Chronius Apollophanes Longinus Modâ—ratuâ— that of Nicomachus and other Pythagoreans of Chereâ—â—â— the Stoike and Corâ—â—tus hee learned to allegorize Thus hee imputeth that to Origene as a fault which shewed his great learning and wisdome that knew how to grace the Christian faith even with the ornaments of such as were adversaries unto it 3. Hereupon â—ulâ—an the Apostate knowing what a benefit unto the Christian religion the liberall Artes and Sciences did bring seeing that by cruelty the Gospell of Christ could not be suppressed did by this subtill practice seeke to hinder it Sancivit legem as Socrates writeth ne Christiani literis hâ—manioribus insâ—â—tuerentur he made a law that no Christians should be instructed in humane artes and his reason was that they should not be able by the helpe of Logicke or other humane learning to defend their faith 4. Thus wee see at this day that whereas the Heathen were the first inventers almost of all humane artes as Socrates Plato Aristotle of Philosophy Euclides Archimedes Ptolomaeus of the Mathematikes Isocrates Demosthenes Cicero of Rhetoricke Homer Pindarus Virgil oâ— Poetrie Herodotus Thucydiâ—es Liviâ—s of Histories now none of these professions are to be found among the Pagans and Infidels but they flourish only among Christians The learned bookes and writings of â—ustinus Marâ—yr Tertullâ—an Clemens Alexandrinus Origene Arnobius Lactantius Cyprian Hierome Augustine with the rest doe evidently shew how the spoiles of Egypt are now possessed onely by the people of God 5. And not onely these learned Fathers and teachers of the Church have made use of the Egyptian ornaments but even the holy Prophets also and Apostles have taken of those spoiles as Moses was instructed in all the Egyptian learning And so was Daniel in
seventh day rather is enjoyned to bee a principall feast day unto the Lord 〈◊〉 chap. 12.16 Vers. 8. For this cause did the Lord this unto me when he brought me I.V.C. or that he brought me c. S. This is that which the Lord did unto me where c. L. but here the word baghabur for or because is omitted this is done because of that which the Lord did A.P.B.G. This last seemeth to be the best reading See the 6. question following Vers. 12. Thou shalt sâ—t over unto the Lord. I.V. cause to passe A.P.C.H. separate L.S. set apart G. appoint B. The first rather best agreeth that is he shall deliver it out of his hand unto the Lord as having now no more power over it Vers. 15. Therefore I doe sacrifice unto Iehovah B.G. cum caeter macte I doe kill I. but the other word is more fit because things holy unto God are rather said to be sacrificed than killed Zabach more usually is taken to sacrifice Vers. 13. Thou shalt cut off his necke I.A. better than kill it C. L. or breake his neck B. G.P.V. gharaph signifieth to strike off the necke as Deut. 21.4.6 Vers. 18. The children of Israel went up well appointed or girded P. not armed A.B.G.C.L.V. for whence should they have so much armour nor in battell order I. that is five in a ranke I. for the word signifieth fived they would so have taken up a great length of ground nor in the fifth generation S. for that is contrary to the Lords promise Gen. 15.16 that they should come forth in the fourth generation the word chamushim is derived of chomesh taken for the fift ribbe 2. Sam. 2.18 The meaning then iâ— that their loynes were girded up as they were commanded to eat the Passeover chap. 12.11 and so they went forth as appointed for their journey 3. The explanation of difficult questions QUEST I. How the first borne were accounted that were consecrate unto God Vers. 2. SAnctifie unto the Lord all the first borne 1. What the Lord meaneth by the first borne is expressed in the next words that which openeth the wombe so that here the first borne are so accounted in respect of the mother but in the right of the first borne there was respect had unto the father as Iacob calleth Ruben the beginning of his strength for Ioseph though he were Rachels first borne yet was he not Iacobs but here that is called the first borne which openeth the wombe of his mother as Christ according to this law was the first borne of Mary Simler Though Ioseph her espoused husband had as some thinke other children by a former wife so that if a man had divers wives the first borne of every one was holy unto God 2. It is added among the children of Israel as well of man as of beast because those beasts are excluded which were wilde and not serviceable among them Calvin QUEST II. In what sense the first borne are said to be the Lords Vers. 2. FOr it is mine 1. The first borne are said to be the Lords not onely by a common right as all things are said to be the Lords the earth and the fulnesse thereof 2. Nor yet only because the encrease of every thing is thankfully to bee acknowledged to proceed and come of God Pelliâ—â—n 3. But the first borne of Israel both of man and beast were the Lords by a peculiar right because he preserved them in Egypt when all the first borne of Egypt were destroyed Iun. in Analys 4. God might have commanded all to be offered unto him but he would not challenge or expect of them his full right and due lest it might have seemed grievous unto them but only hee requireth that which hee had more specially preserved Ferus QUEST III. Why the law of the Passeover is repeated Vers. 3. THerefore no leavened bread shall be eaten This institution of the passeover is now againe repeated and the caveat concerning leavened bread is often inculcate and urged 1. Both because mans corrupt and crooked nature had need to be often admonished being ready to forget the precepts of God and to wrest and deprave them Ferus 2. As also to put them in minde of that which was signified hereby to take heed both of the leaven of corrupt doctrine and of corrupt manners Pellican 3. The Hebrewes give this reason of this double institution because of the double sense of the Law one the plaine and open sense the other the hid and secret sense which reason we also approve but not in their meaning which wrest the Scripture with fabulous glosses and ridiculous collections but this wee affirme that in the passeover was a double sense the one concerning that outward ceremony which belonged to the paschall lambe the other hath relation unto Christ the true paschall lambe by whose bloud we are redeemed Simler QUEST IV. Whether Abib were the proper name of a moneth Vers. 4. THis day came ye out in the moneth Abib 1. Some take this to be no proper name of the moneth but a description of it by the fruit that began to ripe then and so they translate Mense novarum fruguâ— the moneth of new fruit so the Chalde Septuagint Latine Pagni Simler Pelican and M. Calvin giveth this reason because the Hebrewes had no proper names of their moneths but such as 2000. yeere after they borrowed of the Chaldes Contra. 1. It was not 2000. yeeres untill the Captivity of Babylon when the Hebrewes borrowed those Chalde names nor full out 1000. as is shewed before quest 46. in chap. 12.2 And further that other names of the moneths are found in Scripture beside the Chalde names as Zif the second moneth Ethanim the seventh Bul the eight is likewise declared afore quest 4. in chap. 12.3 And if Abib were here no proper name it would bee uncertaine which moneth hee meaneth the first or the second for in both there were ripe eares of barley in the first and of wheate in the next for they were to offer of their first fruits also in the feast of weekes Levit. 23.20 Numb 28.26 2. Yet they are deceived that tooke this moneth Abib for the same with the moneth Ab which answereth to our July as Pagnine for it is evident by the keeping of the passeover on the 14. day of the first moneth that the Israelites came out in the first moneth 3. Therefore it is more probable that Abib is here the proper name of the first moneth so called because then the corne was spindled and began to be eared for Abib signifieth the spindle with the eare as Exod. 1.9.3.1 Iun. Vatab. Not that the fruit was ripe this moneth but it began to flower and shew Calvin And thus the Hebrewes in all their feasts had relation unto the fruits of the ground the passeover was kept when the corne eared Pentecost when it was ripe and the feast of the Tabernacles in the end of the
yeere when they had gathered in the fruits of the yeere Simler And this moneth when all things began to revive and spring was answerable unto the state of the Israelites who now were revived by their joyfull deliverance from the winter and boistrous stormes of Egypt Borrh. QUEST V. Why the Israelites are charged to keepe the Passeover in the land of Canaan and not before Vers. 5. NOw when the Lord hath brought thee into the land of the Cananites 1. Hence it is evident that the Israelites were not bound to keepe the passeover in the wildernesse neither do we reade that they kept it more than once there in the second yeere Numb 9. and the next passeover was kept under Iosuah Ios. 5. eight and thirty yeeres after Simler The reason whereof might be this because they were not circumcised after they came out of Egypt for the space of 40. yeeres and the law was that no uncircumcised person should eat of the passeover this also signifieth that we shall not keepe our full and perfect passeover till we come into our heavenly Canaan Pellican 2. The reasons why they are charged to keepe the passeover in that plentifull land that abounded with milke and hony was partly to stirre them up to be thankfull unto God for his benefits and abundant liberality Calvin As also to admonish them that they should remember God in their prosperity and take heed that their full estate did not make them forget him 3. But now in that so fruitfull and pleasant a country as Palestina was is become barren and desolate this judgement hath befallen the Jewes and their country for their sinnes Pellican 4. Five nations only are here named that inhabited Canaan the Cananites Hittites Amorites Hivites Jebusites but the rest also are understood Iun. QUEST VI. Whether the keeping of the passeover was the cause of their deliverance or that the cause of the other Vers. 8. BEcause of that which the Lord did unto me 1. Some doe make this the sense of the place and read thus For this did the Lord doe so unto mee Septuagint Chalde Iun. Vatab. and would have this to be the meaning that God did shew all these wonders in Egypt and deliver them from thence to the end that they should keepe a memoriall of them 2. Others doe reade thus as is set downe supplying the word which and make this the reason of keeping the passeover because the Lord delivered them out of Egypt Simler Calvin Latine Genevens Pagine Montan. And this seemeth to be the more agreeable exposition both for that the cause of a thing goeth before the use thereof the wonders which the Lord did were first done and then the passeover commanded in remembrance thereof this was because of the other rather than the other because of this And againe the children aske not a reason of those things which the Lord did for them but they demand the cause of their service which they performe unto God as is shewed chap. 12.26 and chap. 13.14 Piscator QUEST VII How these things should be as signets upon their hands Vers. 9. IT shall be for a signe upon thine hand c. 1. This phrase is not only used as a similitude that they should alway have the benefits of the Lord in remembrance as a thing alwayes in their sight and that the passeover should as a signet on their head and as a frontlet betweene their eyes call to their remembrance their deliverance out of Egypt Sic Simler Pellic. though in the Proverbs this phrase is used in that sense by way of similitude as Prov. 1.9 They shall be as ornaments to thy head and as chaines to thy necke and chap. 6.21 Bind them to thy heart and tye them to thy necke And by these three to put it on the hands and forehead and to have it in the mouth are signified the faith in the heart the confession in the mouth and the operation of the hands whereby we expresse our thankfulnesse unto God Borrh. 2. Yet this is not all the meaning of this place but it is like also that they used some externall signe as in wearing signets upon their hands and frontlets upon their browes to put them in minde of the Law of God as for the same cause they were commanded to make fringes upon their garments Numb 15.38 And as they were commanded to write the Law upon the postes of their doores so also to binde them 〈◊〉 signets to their hands Deut. 6.6 for like as the Idolatrous nations did weare earings and frontlets in honour of their Idols as the Romane Gentrie were knowne by their rings and their Priests and their wives by their tutuli their foretops so the Lord would have the Israelites to use these ornaments as ensignes of their profession Simler Thus M. Calvin approving the first exposition yet assenteth also unto this if any man thinke that Moses alludeth unto those Qui tarditatis suae conscii subsidia memoriae sibi conficiunt non repugno Which because of their dulnesse doe use these things as helpes to their memory I will not gainsay Iunius also giveth this note Deut. 6.8 upon these words Thou shalt bind them as a signe to thine hand Typus accurata observationis atque perpetuae This was a type of the exact and continuall keeping of the Law Therefore there is no inconvenience to thinke that as they used fringes upon their garments so also frontlets and signets that should be alwayes in their eyes to put them in minde of the Law of God as reverend Beza very well noteth also Erat hic ritus quem postea Iudaei suis superstitionibus contaminarunt a Domino constitutus ut esset veluti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legis beneficiorum This rite which afterward the Iewes corrupted with their superstitions was appointed of God that it should be as a remembrance and monument of the Law and of the benefits which the Lord had bestowed upon them Annot. in Matth. 23.5 3. Yet this being admitted I cannot see how the Jewes out of this place can prove that use and custome of writing some part of the law in scroules of parchment and so binding them to their foreheads and to the wrests of their hands as they doe at this day Simler For whereas they write in those parchments certaine sacred lections which they call parashoth Beza which are the foure places where mention is made of these signes upon their hands and frontlets betweene their eyes two out of this Chapter vers 9. and 16. two out of Deut. chap. 6.8 and chap. 11.18 what warrant can they shew for the excerpting of these foure texts rather than any other this seemeth then to be a tradition of their owne without any ground in Scripture 4. But that superstitious use of the Jewes who doe place the greatest part of their religion in carrying about with them their tephillim and zizim their frontlets and fringes as they call them thinking that thereby they
are preserved from evill spirits hath no shew of any warrant at all in the Scripture which Pharisaicall superstition is reproved by our Saviour Matth. 23.5 for while their chiefe care was to bind such monuments unto their foreheads and hands in the meane time the law went out of their hearts The like superstition hath much prevailed in time past among Christians who by writing some parcell of Scripture as the beginning of the Gospell of S. Iohn and by hanging it about their necke or an Agnus Dei and such like thought themselves sufficiently garded against spirituall assaults Simler 5. Augustine is farre wide in the application of this ceremony for upon these words It shall be as a signe upon their hands thus collecteth Super manus id est super opera that is upon their workes and so inferreth hereupon that fides praeponenda est operibus that faith is to bee preferred before workes which assertion and conclusion of his is most true yet not proper or peculiar to this place August quaest 48. in Exod. QUEST VIII Of the redeeming of the first borne of uncleane beasts Vers. 13. EVery first borne of an asse c. 1. The first borne which were peculiar unto God were either of men or beasts the firstlings of the beasts were either cleane or uncleane the cleane were to be sacrificed the uncleane were either to be redeemed or else to be beheaded as the asse and other beasts of service but some could not be redeemed but they must be killed as the dog Simler 2. By the first borne of the asse all other uncleane beasts are signified this kind is put for the rest because there were great store of them in that country Iun. 3. The neck must be striken off lest that which was holy unto God should bee put to prophane uses Iun. and by the horror of this â—ight to testifie the ingratitude of the owner of the beast who had rather his beast should be killed than redeemed Pellican This breaking or cutting off the necke did signifie also the hard and stiffe necke of the people which in time the Lord would bend and breake Borrh. 4. God would have the first borne of uncleane beasts also to be peculiar to him although they were not ordained for sacrifice yet were they otherwise necessary and profitable for mans use and to let them understand that to God nothing was uncleane which he had made but he saw all things to be exceeding good Pellican QUEST IX Of the conditions required in the first borne of cleane beasts Vers. 12. THe males shall bee the Lords c. 1. Three things are required in the first borne of beasts which should be offered unto God 1. That they should bee of cleane beasts for it was not lawfull to present any uncleane thing unto God Vatab. 2. Then the first borne to acknowledge God the giver and author of all things which we have Pellican 3. They must be males because the best and most perfect things must be given unto God and this was a type of that perfect man Christ Jesus whereunto the Apostle alludeth when he saith Till we all meet together c. unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ Ephes. 4.13 Borrh. 2. Elsewhere in the law there are three other rules set downe to be observed in the consecration of the first borne as first that the first borne should bee seven dayes with the damme and upon the eight day it should bee given unto God Exod. 22.30 which time was set both to prevent the fraud which might bee used in offering things soone taken from the damme which were of no use nor service and so the Lord should be defrauded aâ— also in this perfixed time of 8. dayes there was a correspondency to the law of circumcision which was limited to the eight day Gen. 17.12 Calvin Secondly in voluntary oblations they were forbidden to dedicate unto the Lord any of the first borne because it was the Lords already Levit 27.26 which was to prevent and to meet with mens hypocrisie that would pretend devotion in offering somewhat unto God but yet would give him nothing but that which was his owne already Thirdly they were commanded Neither to doe any worke with the first borne bullocke nor to sheare their first borne sheepe Deut. 15.19 this was commanded to stay mens covetousnesse that although they would not defraud the Lord of his first borne yet would take so much profit of it as they could therefore they are charged to offer unto God his first borne without any diminution neither to present a first borne bullocke worne out with labour or a shorne sheepe Calvin QUEST X. Of the law of redeeming the first borne of men Vers. 13. LIkewise the first borne among thy sonnes shalt thou buy out with money 1. The reason of this exception was both because it was an impious thing to offer any humane sacrifice unto God Simler such were the impious sacrifices of the Heathen to consecrate their sonnes through the fire unto their abominable Idols which the Lord forbiddeth his people to doe That they should not give of their children to Moloch Lev. 20.2 Another reason was because the Lord had determined that the Levits should be consecrate to his peculiar service in stead of the first borne Calvin 2. There are two kinds of exchanges made for the first borne one was for that time only when the Levites were taken for the Lord in stead of the first borne as the males of the Levites from one moneth old being 22000. were given unto God out of all Israel for their first borne which came to 22270. persons and the odde 270. persons were redeemed for money every one being set at 5. shekels Numb 3.47 The other redemption was perpetuall which was made with money for every one of their first borne they were to give five shekels Numb 18.16 3. The first borne also were two wayes to be redeemed one was peculiar unto the first borne to redeeme them with money the other was common not only unto the first borne but unto all males which should be borne that the mother at the time of her purifying should offer a lambe or a paire of turtle doves or of young pigeons Levit. 2.6.8 but this offering served rather for the purifying of the mother than for the consecrating of the child Both these lawes were fulfilled in the birth of our Saviour Christ for both hee was presented unto God as the first borne and his mother brought an oblation according to the law Luk. 2.23 24. Ferus 4. There were also two kindes of consecrating the first borne the one wherein the Lord had a right unto them as unto the first borne of cleane beasts which were to be sacrificed in which case the first borne were to be redeemed the other when they were consecrate unto Gods speciall service in the tabernacle as Anna vowed Samuel unto God or to a more strict
which should come of the stocke of Iesse and of the graft that should grow out of his root Isay 11.1 who should make our bitter waters sweet as he saith Come unto me all that labour and I will refresh you Borrh. 3. It signifieth also that our bitter afflictions by faith are made easie and pleasant which remaine bitter sowre and tart Nisi fide adhibeamus ad lignum crucis Christi Vnlesse we doe apply by faith the wood of Christs crosse that iâ— beleeve in his death Osiander So also Augustine Praefigurans gloriam gratiam crucis It prefigured the glory and grace of the crosse 4. This further sheweth what wee are by nature and what by grace by these bitter waters the Lord would bring to light Amaritudinem quae in eorum cordibus latebat the bitternesse which lay hid in their hearts Calvin By nature therefore our waters that is our thoughts and all our actions are bitter but they are washed and purified by grace and faith in Christ. QUEST XLIII What law and ordinances the Lord here gave his people Vers. 25. THere he made them an ordinance and a Law 1. The Hebrewes thinke that this Law here given them was concerning the Sabbath which in the next Chapter is confirmed and established where they are forbidden to gather Manna upon the Sabbath But the law of the Sabbath was more ancient for immediately after the creation the Lord sanctified the seventh day of rest to bee perpetually observed and kept of his Church And it is not to be doubted of but that the Israelites kept the Sabbath in Egypt as may appeare by the institution of the Passeover wherein both in respect of the number of the seventh day prescribed to be an holy convocation and by the manner of keeping the same in resting from all servile worke Exod. 12.16 there seemeth to be relation to the rest of the Sabbath and seventh day which they were already acquainted with after the ensample whereof they should keepe the seventh day of unleavened bread 2. Lyranus thinketh that these were certaine ceremoniall Lawes as of the red cow prescribed afterward at large Num. 19. and other rites of legall purifyings as also some judicials But this is only his conjecture without any ground the first Law that was given the people after they came out of Egypt was the morall Law and before this it is evident that there were certaine ceremoniall rites and judiciall equities kept by the Fathers so that this was not the first time and place that they received such things 3. Simlerus is of opinion therefore that such ceremonies and rites as were preserved and continued by tradition from the Fathers were here by the authority of God confirmed that they should not take them as grounded upon custome only but warranted and commanded by God But it seemeth by the phrase He set them an ordinance that they received an ordinance not given them before and seeing that the Lord intended shortly within the space of little more than a moneth as may be gathered chap. 16.1 and chap. 19.1 to give them Lawes and ordinances in mount Sinai there appeared no such necessity to prevent that time and place 4. Pellican understandeth the Lawes and ceremonies which were given afterward in mount Sinai Eo loci sed non jam tunc About that place but not at that time But neither about that place were the Lawes given which were delivered in mount Sinai for betweene Marah and the desert of Sinai they had six stations or mansions as they are numbred Num. 33. from verse 9. to vers 16. And this Law here mentioned was given at this time while they stayed in Marah where they proved and tried their faith and obedience as the next words shew 5. Some thinke that the Lord here gave them Lawes Non scriptura sed ore ut justè viverent not in writing but by word of mouth that they should live uprightly Ferus And what Lawes they were is not here expressed Osiander But to what purpose should a Law be given not written that the people might alwayes have it in remembrance 6. Therefore what this Law and ordinance was is here in the next verse expressed where the Lord moveth the people to the obedience of his Lawes with promise to bee their protector in keeping them from the plagues and diseases of Egypt Iun. So that the Lord in this place dealeth two wayes with his people Postquam aqua penuria illos examinavit verbo etiam admonuit After he had tried and examined them with the want and penury of water hee doth also by his Word admonish them to be more obedient Calvin QUEST XLIV Why the Lord at this time gave his people a Law NOw why the Lord gave them this Law and ordinance in Marah the reasons may be these 1. Because the people a long time having beene in bondage were not used to the Lords yoke they might have said then with the Prophet Isai. 26.13 Other Lords beside thee have ruled us therefore Hoc populo longa servitute oppresso forte iâ— dissuetudinem venerant Because the people by their long servitude might perhaps have growne to a disuse the Lord giveth them a Law Simler 2. The Lord in thus doing Pactum cum patribus factum renovat Doth renne the covenant made with their Fathers Pellican Hee doth give them a Law to put them in mind of the ancient covenant made with their forefathers 3. The Lord taketh occasion by this present benefit in providing of them water in their distresse to take triall of their obedience Postquam aquae penuria examinavit populum After he had examined them with the penury of water Calvin Which might serve as a preparative to move them to obedience 4. Because they were a carnall and disobedient people they had need of a Law to bind them Carnales enim cancello legis indigent For carnall men had need to be held in by a Law Ferus As the Apostle saith The Law is not given to a righteous man but to the lawlesse and disobedient 1. Tim. 19. 5. The Lord here giveth them a Law to shew what was the end of their deliverance and redemption out of Egypt not to live as they list but to walke in obedience before God Populum docet ne ex servitute liberati ad carnis libidinem deflectat He teacheth the people lest they being delivered out of bondage should turne unto the lust of the flesh Pellican 6. And beside the Lord would by this meanes Paulatim populum jugo legis adsuefacere By little and little acquaint his people with the yoke of his Law which he was purposed to deliver more fully in mount Sinai Osiander So also Simler and Borrh. QUEST XLV Who is said here to tempt him ANd there he â—â—oved him 1. Some doe understand this of the people that they should tempt God and in that sense it is understood two wayes either that they tempted God after he had given
them a Law which sheweth the great perversenesse of the people that notwithstanding the Law given them ceased not to sinne against God or it is a reason why the Lord gave them a Law because they there tempted him this latteâ— sense Calvin preferreth Quod Deus populi malitiam castigaverit à quo tentatuâ— fuerat The Lord correcteth the malice of the people of whom he was tempted But if it were understood of the people the verbe would have beene put in the plurall number They tempted him as vers 23. When they came to Marah and vers 24. jilâ—â—â— hagâ—am the people murmured where people is in the singular but murmured in the plurall And againe the coherence of the sentence beareth not this sense There he set them that is the people a law and there he proved him the same him then he proved unto the which he set a law 2. Some thinke that Moses in Gods name proved the people Genevens But the same that is said before to set them a law doth also prove them that is God and not Moses 3. Therefore the meaning is that God tried here the faith and obedience of his people and this best agreeth both with the words before going that he which gave a law unto them is said also to prove them and with the words following And he said if thou wilt diligently harken c. As God thus said to his people so hee it was that proved them Simler QUEST XLVI Of the divers kinds of temptations Vers. 25. ANd there he proved him 1. There are three kinds of temptations God tempteth man and man tempteth God and the Devill is the tempter of man 1. God is said to tempt two kind of wayes either directly and immediately by himselfe or mediately by other By himselfe sometime he proveth and tempteth by blessings to see if the people will be thereby perswaded to obedience as he did by giving them Manna Exod. 16.5 and Deut. 8.16 sometime by afflictions to see if they will be faithfull as he proved the Israelites in the desert 40. yeeres Deut. 8.3 The Lord is said to tempt mediately when others are the instruments and agents but God the disposer as hee is said by false Prophets to prove his people whether they love the Lord with all their heart Deut. 13.3 2. Man also is said to tempt God as the Israelites did in the wildernesse provoke the Lord by their tentations 40. yeeres Heb. 3.10 And these tentations are of three sorts 1. By despairing and distrusting in the power and assistance of God as Psalm 78.41 They tempted God and limited the holy one of Israel they did limite and tye God unto meanes that when they saw no ordinary meanes to be provided for they despaired as they spake against God saying Can God prepare a table in the wildernesse Psal. 78.19 2. They are said to tempt and provoke God which presume upon God neglecting or refusing the meanes As our Saviour answered the Devill that would have tempted him to cast himselfe downe from the top of the pinacle and to trust in Gods assistance Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God to have presumed upon Gods helpe where there was no cause or necessity had beene a tempting of God So the Prophet saith that the King of Judah in refusing to aske a signe for the confirmation of their hope in God provoked God Isay 7.13 3. Men also tempt God by their curiosity where as they aske things of God which are not necessary as the King of Judah would not aske a signe because it was to tempt God Isay 7.12 which is generally true that he which beleeveth not Gods word without a signe tempteth him but hee was deceived in the particular for it is no tempting of God to aske a signe where the Lord doth offer it as in that place he did So the Sadduces and Pharisies are said to tempt Christ when they asked a signe for men doe as well tempt God of curiosity as of infidelity of this sort was the temptation of the Israelites When they tempted God in their hearts requiring meat for their lust Psalm 78.14 They did of wantonnesse and curiosity for their bellies as the other curiosity is for the mind lust for flesh when they needed not having Manna to content them 3. The Devill is said to be the tempter of man that is a seducer and leader of them into evill and therefore he is simply without any other addition called the Tempter Matth. 4.4 Here then Augustines distinction may well be received Vnam tentationem intelligimus quae decipit sic Deus non tentat alteraâ— qua probat sic tentamur à Deo Wee understand one temptation which deceiveth so God tempteth none one that proveth so we are tempted of God The temptation of Satan hath a double act one toward God when hee tempteth and urgeth God against the Saints and therefore is called the accuser of the brethren the other toward men and so he is the deceiver of the world Revel 12.9 10. And in these temptations unto evill there is a principall tempter and chiefe egger unto evill which is the Devill and ministring and underserving tempters as the concupiscence of our owne nature So the Apostle saith every man is tempted When he is drawne away by his owne concupiscence and is entised Iam. 1.14 As Bernard also well saith Diabolus proprio baculo nos caedit manus nostras proprio cingulo ligat ut caro quae nobis data est in adjutorium fiat nobis in ruinam The Devill doth beat us with our owne staffe and bindeth our hands with our owne girdle that our flesh which was given for our helpe should bee unto our ruine Bernard meditat cap. 15. QUEST XLVII Of the difference betweene good and evill tentations IT shall not bee amisse here to shew the differences betweene good and evill tentations 1. They differ in the efficient cause God is the author of the one as God tempted Abraham the Devill of the other as hee entred into Iudas heart and tempted him to betray Christ. 2. The end is divers Deuâ— tentat ut doceat Diabolus ut decipiat God tempteth to teach us the Devill to deceive us August de tempore serm 72. Abrahams temptation sheweth the one and Iobs the other Deus tentat ut corâ—â—et Diabolus tentat ut subruat God tempteth to crowne us the Devill tempteth to confound us Ambros. lib. 1. dâ— Abraham cap. 8. 3. The manner also is divers the Devill promiseth faire and performeth foule he maketh himselfe a friend but in the end turneth a foe hee beginneth like a Lambe but endeth like a Lion Vt spirituales defraâ—det transfigurat se in angelum lucis ut fortes comprimat apparet agâ—us To deceive those that are spirituall he transfigureth himselfe into an Angell of light to overcome the strong hee sheweth himselfe as a Lambe Augustin soliloq cap. 17. Hee inveigleth Judas with hope of gaine when hee betrayed
sunt for so also the flesh should be comprehended in this word for they were also a kind of nourishment but the flesh and bread here promised were two distinct things as is evident vers 8. 2. Neither is yet bread here taken properly for that which is made of corne for of that kinde Manna was not 3. Therefore the name bread is here taken for that which should be in steed of bread as the foundation and stay of other meates which should serve to strengthen mans heart as bread doth Psalm 104.14 and for that they were to use it as bread in grinding it and baking it and making cakes of it Numb 11.9 Tostat. 4. It is said to raine from heaven because it came downe in the manner of raine or snow out of the aire which is called by the name of heaven as Psal. 8.8 they are called the fowles of heaven 5. And hereby the Lord signifieth the great abundance of this heavenly bread which should overflow and fall every where as the raine that both poore and rich might have enough and in that it came from heaven hee would teach them that although the earth was barren below that he could command the heavens above to nourish them that they should no more be so diffident or distrustfull Ferus QUEST VIII Why they are commanded every day to gather this bread GAther that which is sufficient for every day 1. What this sufficiency was is afterward expressed vers 16. for every one a gomer full Tostat. 2. And as God promiseth to send it so they are required to gather it whereby is signified that although God doe send bread and other necessaries for the sustentation of man yet hee must doe his diligence in the labour and travell of his vocation Ferus 3. And here the Lord promiseth only sufficiencie not superfluity that they should not give themselves to immoderate appetite and gluttony Pellican 4. And further the Lord promiseth bread not for yeeres or moneths but for every day for it selfe that they should depend upon Gods providence day by day Genevens And for this cause the Hebrewes thinke that the seventh yeere of rest was appointed in the law wherein they should neither sow nor reape that as well the rich as poore should that yeere depend upon Gods providence And agreeable unto this rule is that petition in the Lords prayer Give us this day our daily bread where our Saviour teacheth us daily to depend upon God for our food Oleaster QUEST IX How the Lord is said by this to have proved his people and to what end Vers. 4. THat I may prove them 1. This probation of them was not to that end that the Lord should have experience of them for their froward nature was well enough knowne to him but as Augustine saith ut ipsis hominibus ostenderet to make them knowne to themselves and others Tostat. 2. Some referre this probation or triall to that particular law and precept of gathering but a certaine portion of Manna every day to see whether they would beleeve Gods promise and depend upon him Sic Vatab. Borrha Galas Tostat. Rupert 3. Some understand it as well of that precept as of the other not to gather any upon the Sabbath as the Lord tried Adams obedience in that one prohibition not to eat of the forbidden fruit Simler 4. Some will have it taken more largely of all the precepts and commandements touching Manna which were eight in all 1. To gather Manna in the morning 2. To gather that which was sufficient 3. Not to exceede in eating the measure of a gomer 4. Not to leave any till the morrow 5. Upon the 6. day to gather double so much 6. To reserve one gomer for the Sabbath 7. To eat that measure so reserved upon the Sabbath 8. To keepe a gomer of Manna for a monument to posterity Lyranus 5. But it is better to take it in a more generall sense The Lord as hee had tried them before with crosses and adversity so now hee will prove them by his benefits to see whether they will afterward walke in his feare and in obedience before him Sic Ferus Calvin Osiand Pelarg. And thus by this particular benefit God would prepare them to the obedience of his law which should be given afterward Oleaster QUEST X. Why the flesh was given in the evening the bread in the morning Vers. 8. AT even shall the Lord give you flesh to eat c. 1. The reason why both the flesh and bread were not given together as the Ravens brought unto Elias bread and flesh at once both morning and evening 1. King 17. some take to be mysticall Augustine applieth it to Christ who was sacrificed in the evening and rose againe in the morning being the true bread which is given us from heaven Rupertus by the flesh in the evening signifieth the carnall rites of the law by the bread in the morning the faith of the Gospell Ferus by the flesh given in the evening understandeth the incarnation of the Sonne of God in the evening that is toward the end of the world who came to redeeme us and by the bread in the morning when they should see the glory of God the glory of immortality in the next life 2. But leaving these mysticall applications which may be as many and divers as their heads are thaâ— devise them some other thinke that the reason was this because these times were best agreeable unto the things the evening was fittest for the fall of the quailes which being wearied by the â—â—ight of the day doe light upon the ground at night and the morning was the fittest time for the Manna which fell with the dew and if it were not gathered betime it melted with the heat of the Sunne Lyranus These reasons are misliked by Tostatus the first because the quailes came not by any naturall instinct but sent of God by an extraordinary wind and the Manna which was hardned by the fire and melted by the heat of the Sunne had not that property by any naturall quality for then it should have melted by any heat whatsoever as we see butter and oyle doth and other liquid things therefore it was a supernaturall quality which was given to Manna to melt with one kind of heat and not with another But Tostatus hath not thus answered Lyranus reason concerning the falling of Manna in the morning for howsoever that were a supernaturall quality in the Manna yet iâ— appeareth de facto that it did melt by the heat of the Sunne then was the morning the fittest season to gather it in before the Sunne waxed hot The morning then serving best for Manna what other time could bee â—itter for the rayning of flesh than the evening for together they could not come if the flesh had fallen with the Manna it could not have beene gathered 3. But the best solution is which is touched by Lyranus also and subscribed unto by Tostatus
this meanes should all this businesse fall into that very time when the people were preparing themselves to receive the law 2. Neither is it like that Iethro came immediately after the giving of the law for Moses stayed 40. dayes with God in the mount and then comming downe he judged the people for their Idolatrie which was no time to give entertainment to Iethro all the host being in heavinesse and after that Moses stayed 40. dayes more so that it was toward the end of the first yeare or the beginning of the second when Iethro came This is Tostatus second reason Contra. All this is easily granted and admitted that Iethro came not immediately after the law was given but this sheweth not that he came not before the giving of the law as is before declared 3. Againe seeing Iethro returned into his Countrie in the second yeare the second moneth when they were about to remove their campe from mount Sinai Numb 10.30 it is not like that hee would stay a whole yeare with Moses out of his owne Countrie Tostat. Contra. That storie concerning Hobabs departure who also is Iethro is transposed and that communication which Moses there hath with his father in law was had before that time which storie is here alleaged because it was there more fully to bee handled Iun. Seeing therefore that one of the stories must of necessitie be transposed and set out of his place it is for many reasons more agreeable to the order of the things which were done to referre that storie Numb 10. to this place than to joyne this unto that for immediately after that storie there inserted of Hobabs departure followeth in the next Chapter Num. 11 the constitution of the 70. Elders which was a divers ordinance from Iethros device of constituting Captaines over thousands hundreds and fiftie and like not to have followed immediately upon the other because Moses having made so many coadjutors so lately by the advice of his father in law which did helpe to beare the burden with him would not so soone have complained till he had had full triall and exâ—ience of that forme of government that he was not able to beare the people alone as he doth complaine Numb 11.14 4. Further it is objected that at Iethro his comming hee gave that advice for the appointing of under officers and Judges but this was done in the second yeare what time they were to remove from mount Sinai as Moses himselfe sheweth that it was about the same time when the Lord spake unto him to depart from Choreb Deut. 1.6 9. Tostat. Contra. Moses indeed saith I spake unto you the same time saying I am not able to beare you my selfe alone but these words The same time must not be restrained to the time of the Lords speaking unto them to remove from Choreb for how could that choice of officers be made in the instant of their removing but it must be understood generally of the time of their stay and abode by the mount Choreb Iun. 2. Wherefore the more probable opinion is that Iethro came unto Moses while they encamped about Choreb before they removed to the wildernesse of Sinai and there received the law in that order as it is here set downe by Moses 1. Because no anticipation of time or transposing of the storie is to be admitted in Scripture where no necessity of the sense enforceth it now here is no such necessity to urge us to thinke this storie to be set out of the place neither any inconvenience need to be feared in admitting the same to be done in this order as Moses hath penned it as is before shewed in the particular answer to the severall objections 2. The nearenesse of that place doth perswade as much that seeing Midian was not far off from Choreb where Moses had used to keepe his father in lawes sheepe it is like that Iethro invited by the nearenesse and opportunity of the place tooke this journey Lyranus And though Moses when he departed with his wife and children lodged by the way that might be because the children were young and tender and so he tooke easie journeyes or the day might bee farre spent when he tooke his leave of his father in law as when in the like case the Levite departed from his wives father Iud 19. 3. Neither is it like Moses with the host of Israel lying so neare unto Midian so long together well nie a yeare that Iethro would deferre so long to bring Moses wife and children unto him or that Mosâ—â— would all that while endure their absence from him Lyranus 4. The text sheweth that the report of those things which the Lord had done for Moses and Israel brought him thither it seemeth then that as soone as he had heard of the same of the late victory of the Amalekites Iethro dispatched presently to goe unto Moses Iosephus QUEST VIII Wherefore Iethro sent before to Moses Vers. 6. ANd he said to Moses 1. Iethro said thus by some messengers which he sent before to Moses which both shewes his humanity he would not presse upon Moses unawares though he were his father in law Simler And he did it Vt honestius reciperentur That they might be received in better manner for Moses honour Lyran. Tostat. It is like also that Iethro came with some troupe and company and therefore could have no safe passage or entrance without some safe conduct from Moses for the Israelites did stand upon their watch and guard because of their enemies which were round about them Simler It might be also that Iethro did this in humility not presuming to joyne himselfe to the people of God before he had made Moses acquainted Ferus QUEST IX Of the manner of Moses entertainment Vers. 7. ANd Moses went out to meet c. 1. Moses humility joyned with humanity appeareth in going forth to meet his father in law whom hee reverenceth as his elder and his father in law though in other respects Moses being the Ruler of such a great people and endued with such an excellent gift in the power of miracles were the more honourable person Tostat. 2. Then Moses sheweth his love in kissing him which was used then and is yet in some Countries as a signe and testimonie of love Marbach 3. Then his courtesie appeareth each in asking the other of their welfare and health Pelarg. 4. His beneficence and hospitality is declared in bringing him into his Tent. Pelarg. that they might better commune within of their affaires than abroad Lyran. This was Moses peculiar Tabernacle which he pitched without the host chap. 33.7 and whereupon the cloud used to rest before the great Tabernacle was set up Tostat. It was not that great Tabernacle where the Arke afterwards was put for it was not lawfull for any Gentile to enter therein Hugo de Sanct. Victor neither was yet that Tabernacle spoken of QUEST X. Why Moses declareth all these things unto Iethro Vers. 8. THen Moses
LEt them bee ready on the third day c. 1. The opinion of some of the Rabbines is that this was not the 3. day of the moneth but the 6. day and the third from that time when the Lord thus spake to Moses for they say that upon the first day of the moneth Moses went up to God and received that message to bee delivered to the people and came downe the same day and stayed the next and reported not the answer of the people untill the 3. day R. Salom. Lyran. Cajetanus is of the same opinion that the first day of the moneth was but the 45. day after their departure out of Egypt and that the Lord upon the 48. day bid the people to bee ready against the third day after Contra. But this is not like for this would have shewed great negligence in Moses if he should have stayed so long before hee delivered the peoples minde to the Lord seeing mount Sinai was so neere unto the host 2. Some thinke that it was the third of the moneth and that it hath relation to the first day mentioned vers 1. Tostat. quaest 10. Gloss. ordin Ferus But this cannot stand neither for both Ferus and Gloss. interlin doe make the first day of the moneth but the 47. day then the third day wherein the law was given was but the 49. day but the day wherein the law was given is held of all to bee the Pentecost the 50. day Some to take away this doubt would borrow 17. dayes of the first moneth and 30. of the next and 3. of the third and so the publishing of the law shall fall out upon the 50. day So Augustine Gloss. ordin But there remained only 16. dayes of the first moneth to be counted the Passeover being kept upon the 14. day at even therefore they cannot make their reckoning of 17. dayes remaining in that moneth and to account 31. dayes unto the next moneth as some doe it was against the custome of the Hebrewes 3. Therefore it must thus be that on the first day of the moneth when the host was come into the wildernesse oâ— Sinai Moses went up to the Lord and came downe with the message to the people and then the next day went up with the peoples answer unto God for it is not like that all the host came thither and Moses went up and came downe and propounded the Lords words to the Elders and they to the people and received their answer and returned the same all upon one day And Cajetanes conceit herein is not to be refused that because the Lord saith To day and to morrow sanctifie them Insinuatur quod haec dicta fuerint manâ— It is insinuated that this was said in the morning This then was spoken upon the second day in the morning and the third day from thence was the law given which was not the third but the fourth day of the moneth Iun. Simler Rupertus also agreeth that the first day of the third moneth was the 47. day after the Passeover and that the fourth day after which was the 50. day Moses received the tables of the law but herein he differeth that the thicke cloud with the thunder and the lightning were seene and heard the day before which was the 49. But it is evident by the text that upon the third day was the voice of the Lord heard talking with Moses vers 19. QUEST XVII Whether the 15. day of the moneth were one of the fifty which went before the giving of the Law BUt here ariseth another doubt whether in the computation of these 50. dayes after the Passeover the next day after they had eaten the paschall lambe be included in that number or that there were fifty dayes beside 1. Some doe hold that the 15. day being the morrow after the Pasch must bee excluded because afterward in the law of the Pentecost they began the account of seven weekes upon the 16. day the morrow after the Sabbath or first solemne day of the Passeover as is further to be seene Lev. 23.11 and then after seven weekes complete the which make 49. dayes the next day which was the 50. was the day of Pentecost Cajetan But it is not necessary that this first 50. day should be accounted after that rule excluding the morrow after the Passeover as it may appeare partly by the text When yee bee come into the land which I shall give you vers 10. that law is made to bee kept after they were come to Canaan and the reason of this alteration was because they were to begin the account of the seven weekes from that day wherein they first put the sickle into the corne whereof they should bring a sheafe to shake before the Lord Deut. 16.9 which could not be done upon the first day of unleavened bread it being a solemne day and of the nature of a Sabbath wherein they were to doe no servile worke Levit. 23.7 Rupertus here agreeth that the Pentecost was not yeerely kept the just fiftith day after the Passeover as the law was given the fiftith day after the Passeover But herein he is deceived that upon what day soever the Passeover fell in the weeke they did expect the morrow after the next Sabbath when they were to bring in their sheafe and then beginne to count their seven weekes for herein is his errour he taketh the Sabbath there spoken of Levit. 23.10 for the seventh day of rest where it is understood to be the first day of unleavened bread which was a solemne day of rest as the Sabbath was Iun. Borrh. And by the way Rupertus in the same place slippeth in another point Prima dies azymorum Iudaeis in quintam feriam illo anno evenit The first day of unleavened happened to the Iewes that yeere upon the fifth day of the weeke For true it is that our blessed Saviour did eat the Passeover according to the law upon the 14. day which was as our Thursday at even but the Jewes following a tradition of their owne to avoid the concurrence of two Sabbath dayes did put off the eating of the Passeover untill the 15. day of the moneth at even which was the sixth day of the weeke because the next day was the Sabbath for if they had eat the Passeover when Christ did eat it with his Disciples then the next day should have beene kept holy neither were they to doe any worke therein but upon that day they put Christ to death which could not be done without more than servile labour in carrying the crosse and nailing Christ unto it and such like beside the text saith they would not put Christ to death upon the feast day lest there should bee some tumult among the people Mark 14.2 But this point is elsewhere handled more at large whither I referre the Reader 2. Some againe as Cajetane before excludeth the 15. day of the moneth out of the number of the 50. dayes
washing of the garments he sheweth the puritie of the bodie Indumentum enim animae corpus quodam modo est For the bodie is as it were a garment to the soule Raban Vestimenta lavare est opera mundare To wash the garments is to cleanse the works Vestimenta lavare est conscientiam vera fide imbuere to wash the garments is to endue the conscience with faith Lippom. By the washing of the garments is understood Cast it as mentis corporis The chastitie both of bodie and minde Gloss. interlin See more hereof before quest 15. 3. Some thinke that they washed their garments with that purifying water which was made of the ashes of the red Cow prescribed Numb 19. But that is not like for that water was to bee sprinkled against the Tabernacle which was not yet made and Eleazar was to take of the bloud of the Cow with his finger c. But neither Eleazar nor Aaron his father were yet consecrated to the Priesthood therefore they washed their garments with no other than common water at this time Tostat. quaest 9. in 19. cap. QUEST XXIX Why they are commanded not to come at their wives Vers. 15. ANd come not at your wives c. 1. The Latine tanslator readeth Come not neare your wives but your is not in the originall yet it well expresseth the sense for at no time was it lawfull to come neare unto other mens wives Lippom. Some thinke that hereby is meant that wee should not come neare Alicui carnali voluptati vel mundana Any carnall or worldly pleasure when we come neare unto God Gloss. interlin Indeed by this one particular inhibition of one carnall pleasure by the like analogie all other were forbidden but there is a literall inhibiting also of companie and societie with their wives 3. Some give this sense Conjux hîc sensuâ— intelligitur c. The wife is here understood to bee the sense which is joyned unto our nature c. Gregor Nyssen ex Lippom. And so we are bidden to lay aside all carnall sensualitie when we appeare before God But this is to goe from the letter of the text 4. Some make it onely a morall precept that men should abstaine even from lawfull things when they present themselves before God as the Apostle requireth the like of the married couple to abstaine for a time that they may give themselves to fasting prayer 1 Cor. 7. Hieron Rupert Galas but this being a legall injunction contained a further reason than is enforced now in respect of those times 5. So that beside the morall equitie even from lawfull pleasure which bindeth now also in the abstinence for a time from the marriage bed upon occasion of more fervent and extraordinary prayer Marbach there was then also a Legall kind of impuritie and pollution even in the lawfull use of marriage which came by the issue of seed Lavit 15.18 from which kind of Legall pollutions the people were to be sanctified and cleansed at this time Oleaster 6. But that saying of Lyranus is somewhat harsh Licet matrimonialis actus sit licitus tamen annexam habet quandam turpitudinem c. Though the act of the matrimonie be lawfull yet it hath annexed unto it a kind of filthinesse which is excused by the good things in marriage But the Apostle speaketh otherwise That marriage is honourable c. and the bed undefiled Hebr. 13.4 There is then in the undefiled marriage bed no filthinesse or uncleannesse But that other assertion of Lyranus is not much to be misliked Habet annexam depressionem mentis c. It hath also annexed a certaine depression and abasing of the minde because of the vehemencie of carnall delight And therefore they were commanded these three dayes to be sequestred from their wives that their minds might wholly be weaned from carnall delight and bee fixed upon God QUEST XXX Why Moses maketh such an ample and full declaration and description of the Lords glorious appearing in mount Sinai Vers. 16. ANd the third day c. there was thunder and lightnings c. 1. Moses in many words describeth the comming of the Lord and his appearing in mount Sinai Cupiebat enim virpius quam amplissimis posset verbis c. For this godly man desired in the best manner he could to set forth the magnificence of the comming of the Lord. Ferus Sometime Moses goeth up sometime he commeth downe sometime he goeth up alone and another time Aaron with him and all this he doth Vt pararet Domiâ—â— dignum acceptabilem populum c. To prepare a meete and acceptable people for the Lord Lippom. 2. Beside this large description also delivereth Moses from all suspition of deceit and counterfeiting as though he had fained as other lawgivers among the Heathen that he had conference with God for first this preparation of the people against the third day then the talking of the Lord with Moses in the hearing of all the people which were divers hundred thousands doth shew the truth of this narration Lippom. And these prodigious and extraordinarie signes raised upon the suddaine to cleare Moses In serenâ— die subitò mons tenebris circumdatus c. On a suddaine in a cleare morning the hill was beset round with darknesse and fire burst forth of the middest thereof Gregor Nyssen As it is observed in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha by the rising of the Sun and shining upon the earth when Lot entred into Zoar Genes 19.23 that it was a goodly Sun-shine morning when it rained fire and brimstone upon those Cities QUEST XXXI Why it pleased the Lord in this terrible and fearefull manner to appeare with thunder and lightning Vers. 16. THere was thunder and lightning c. 1. Foure signes the Lord sheweth of his comming two were heard the thunder and the sound of the trumpet and two were seene the lightning and the thicke or darke cloud and these appeared in the top of the hill not all over for if the cloud had covered all the hill the people could not have discerned the smoake which was round about upon the hill Cajetan 2. It pleased God in this terrible manner to shew himselfe at the giving of the law for these reasons 1. Because the rude world doth onely esteeme of those things which are done with great shew and magnificence the Lord would in this glorious manner appeare Vt disceret populus cum magni â—stimare That the people should learne highly to esteeme of God 2. Commovit omnia elementa c. He moved all the elements that they might know that he had power over all 3. That the ignorant people might know a difference betweene the true God and the false gods whom the Heathen and especially the Egyptians worshipped that they could doe no such things 4. Vt populo carnali timorem incuteret c. To strike feare and terror into the carnall people that they which would not be wonne by
love should be constrained with feare 5. Vt ostenderet se vendicem legis c. To shew himselfe a Iudge and revenger of those which transgressed his law and in what fearefull manner he would come to judgement to take account of men how they had kept his law Ferus 3. Chrysostome toucheth another reason Negligens erat humanum genus signe oportet igitur ut corrigeretur istis redderetur attentum Mankind was negligent and slothfull and therefore it was meete that they should bee roused up by this meanes and made attentive 4. Another reason why the Lord did thinke good thus to shew himselfe in smoake and fire was this Quia talis apparitio in nube igne non habet figuram Because such an apparition in fire and a cloud hath no representation that by this meanes the people should have no occasion to commit idolatrie Lyran. As the Lord himselfe saith Take heed to your selves for yee saw no image in the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb Deut. 4.15 Tostat. quaest 11. 5. The morall application is this The Lord appeared partly in the brightnesse of fire partly in the darknesse of a cloud Quia humiles per claritatem sua ostensionis illuminat Because he doth illuminate the humble by the brightnesse of his appearing Et superbos per caliginem erroris obscurat And he obscureth the proud by the darknesse of error Gloss. interlin Some further make this mysticall application by the thunder and lightning we may understand God the Father by the cloud the Sonne who assumed our humane nature which shadowed the glorie of his Deitie by the sound of the trumpet the holy Ghost which worketh in the hearts of faithfull people by the trumpet of the Gospell Simler QUEST XXXII Whether this thunder and lightning were naturall THere was thunder and lightning 1. These signes were not naturally caused in respect both of the time and place for now it was about the middest of Summer in the beginning of June the third moneth after the spring when such meteors use not to be ingendred and for the place it was in an hot region in Arabia where the extreme heate doth drie up such exhalations whereof thunder and lightning doe consist And beside the naturall place of these meteors is above in the middle region of the aire where the aire is very cold and so the beating of the aire by an antiperistasis a concurrence and resistance of contrary qualities procureth such thunder-claps and flashings but these signes were shewed below upon the top of the hill in the lower region of the aire Tostat. 2. Neither yet doe I thinke with Tostatus that it was neither verus ignis nor vera fulgura true fire or true lightning but that they so seemed to be because then saith he the fire and lightning would have burned and consumed those that came neere it But this is no good reason for it was no hard matter for the Creator to abate the ordinarie force of these elements as the fire consumed not the bush Exod. 3. neither yet had it any power upon the three children that were put into the fierie fornace Dan. 3. Therefore it was more than an imaginary fire or in shew onely Nihil simplex natura per duplicitatem facit The single and simple truth doth nothing doubly Lyran 3. Wherefore I rather preferre the resolution of Thomas that this was Ignis corporalis ideo palpabilis sensibilis c. A corporall fire palpable and sensible It was a true fire yet not naturall neither yet without naturall meanes altogether but the same supernaturally caused for here was a thicke and darke cloud such as the thunder and lightning useth to breake out of but it was extraordinarily raised out of time and place by the power of God QUEST XXXIII Why the Lord appeared in a thicke and darke cloud Vers. 16. ANd a thicke cloud upon the mount c. 1. This appearing of a thicke and darke cloud was convenient for those times Congruit nubes in fanctionem legalem quae tenebrarum est non lucis The cloud is agreeable to the function of the law which is of darknesse rather than light Borrh. For all things were folded up in the law in shadowes as in a cloud but the revelation of the true light came by Jesus Christ. 2. This also sheweth the infirmitie and weaknesse of man who cannot see the brightnesse of Gods glorie who dwelleth in light that none can attaine unto 1 Tim. 6. but wee see it as thorow a cloud as here the Lord appeareth in fire yet in the middest of smoake and shining thorow a thicke cloud Simler To this purpose also Lyranus saith that therefore God appeared in a darke cloud Quia tales apparitiones fiunt communiter secundum eorum dispositiones quibus fiunt Because such apparitions commonly are made according to their disposition to whom they are shewed Now we have here but a darke and obscure knowledge of divine things and as the eye of the Owle is to the Sunne light so is the minde and understanding of man in respect of divine things Sic Lyran. 3. Unto this assertion of Lyranus two exceptions are taken one by Paulus Burgens the other by Tostatus but both of them without any good ground First Burgensis thus objecteth that Lyranus in this note maketh no difference betweene the knowledge of Moses and of the rest of the people whereas he appeared unto Moses onely in a cloud Numb 12.5 but unto the people in a thicke cloud because Moses clariorem habuit de divinis notitiam quà m populus had a clearer knowledge of divine things than the people Burgens addit 3. Contra. 1. Howsoever the Lord appeared at other times to Moses it is no◠here the question Now the Lord appeared alike to all as well to Moses as to the rest of the people in a thicke and darke cloud which sheweth that although there is difference of gifts and illumination among men yet being compared to God there is no difference Moses himselfe here quaked and trembled as the Apostle observeth Heb. 12 21. as the rest of the people did 2. And that other place is not fitly alleaged for the Lord came downe in the piller of the cloud at that time and spake not onely to Moses but to Aaron and Miriam also 4. Tostatus taketh exception because Lyranus doth not distinguish betweene the apparitions of the old and new Testament whereas the apparitions in the old were obscure Apparitiones antem factae in novo sunt clariores But the aparitions made in the new are more cleare As the holy Ghost came downe upon the Apostles not in fire with the darknesse of a cloud but in bright fire like unto cloven tongues Tostat. quaest 11. Contra. This is true which is here alleaged that the apparitions of the new Testament are clearer and more full of light than the visions of the old neither is it denied by
signifieth as well to as in as the preposition in is taken in the Latine And the circumstance of the place sheweth it to be so for the Angell of Iehovah which spake to Zacharie was the man that stood among the myrrhe trees called the Angell of Iehovah that stood among the myrrhe trees v 10.11 If he were among the myrrhe trees then was he not in Zacharie to speak within him and if Angels could speake to the heart it must needs follow that they know the heart which is contrary to the Scriptures for God onely knoweth the hearts of all men 1 King 8.39 And whereas the Lord himselfe speaketh to the heart herein the ministry of Angels should be superfluous Further also if the other reading be admitted that the Angell spake in the Prophet it was no created Angell but the great Angell of Iehovah the Mediatour of the covenant Christ Jesus who maketh intercession for his people as here in this place this Angell saith unto the Lord O Lord of hostes how long wilt thou be unmercifull to Ierusalem c. vers 12. and then it followeth in the next verse The Lord answered the Angell that talked with me with good and comfortable words Beside that it was the great Angell of Iehovah the Mediatour the commander of other Angels it appeareth vers 12. The other Angels which were sent abroad into the world returne their message unto him They answered the Angell of Iehovah and said c. We have gone thorow the world c. This Angell of Iehovah could talke within and to the heart of the Prophet as in the dayes of his flesh he could descrie the very inward thoughts and reasoning in the mind Mark 2.8 3. But that God himselfe Iehovah Christ the Mediatour both of the old and new Testament was the giver of the Law and that it was he himselfe that talked with Moses by these reasons it is made plaine 1. Because he is called Iehovah vers 2. Iehovah came downe upon mount Sinai which is proprium essentiale nomen Dei nunquam ad creaturas transfertur c. which is the proper and essentiall name of God and is never transferred to any creature Calvin in 3. ad Galat. Tostatus thinketh otherwise that an Angell sometime in the old Testament appearing in the person of God is not onely called God but Dominus Lord also quaest 6. in Exod. But herein he is deceived the Angels indeed are called Elohim God which title is sometime given unto men and excellent persons here as Judges are called Elohim Gods Exod. 22.28 And as Dominus Lord is the interpretation of Adonai so also it is given unto Angels and unto men as Abrahams servant calleth him Adonai his Lord or master Gen. 24. But as Iehovah is translated Dominus the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as both the Latine and Septuagint interpret so it is not competible to any but unto God The Lord saith it shall be his name for ever Exod. 3.15 Neither can it be shewed thorowout the whole bodie of Scripture that the name Iehovah was ever given unto any but unto God onely 2. Moses himselfe saith that Iehovah spake unto you out of the middest of the fire Deut. 4.11 It was the voyce then of God himselfe Deut. 4.12 Simler 3. Another reason may be taken from the office of Christ who was the Mediatour both of the old and new Testament as the Law is said to bee ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediatour Galath 3.19 which though Beza contend to be understood of Moses yet the exposition of Chrysostome and Calvine upon that place is to bee preferred which interpret it of Christ both because of the words following A Mediatour is not of one that is but both of Jewes and Gentiles But Moses was not the Mediatour of the Gentiles as also the title of Mediatour betweene God and man in the new Testament is given onely unto Christ 1 Tim. 2.5 So Chrysostome Mediatorem hic appellat Christum declarans quod ipse ante legem fuerit legem tulerit He calleth Christ the Mediator declaring that he was before the law and that he gave the law And Origen thus expoundeth the same place In fine seculorum homo factus est Iesus Christus sed ante hunc manifestum â—n carâ—e adventum mediatour quidem erat hominum sed nondum erat homo In the end of the world Iesus Christ became man but before his manifestation in the flesh he was the mediatour of men though yet he was not man Wherefore that is a sound assertion of master Calvine Nullam abusque mundi initio Dei fuisse communicationem cum hominibus c. That there was not from the beginning of the world any entercourse betweene God man but by the intercession of the eternall wisdome of God the Son of God That as he is now the Mediatour of intercession reconciliation so he was alwayes of instruction and doctrine And so that saying of Ambrose may conclude this point Quis tantus esset dux qui prodesset omnibus nisi ille qui supra omnes est quis me supra mundum constituereâ— nisi qui major est mundo Who is so great a Captaine to profit and do good to all but he which is above all who should set me above the world but he that is greater than the world Lib. 4. in Luc. Seeing then the morall law was given to profit all people and not the Jewes onely and to remaine as a rule of righteousnes as long as God hath his Church upon earth Moses could not be that mediatour of the law which was but the Captaine of that one people but he which is the Prince and Captaine of the whole Church of God forever 4. But that place will be objected Heb. 2.2 If the word spoken by Angels was stedfast c. In which words the Apostle seemeth to affirme that the law was uttered and delivered by the Angels This place is diversly expounded 1. Some by Angels understand the Priests Prophets and other Ministers of the old Testament as Chrysostome toucheth this exposition upon the like place Galath 3.19 that the law was ordained by Angels But this interpretation cannot stand for the Apostle sheweth afterward what Angels he speaketh of He hath not put in subjection unto the Angels the world to come vers 5. 2. Some by Angell understand Christ Simler But the Apostle speaketh of Angels in the plurall And the Apostle compareth together the word spoken by Angels and the word preached by the Lord himselfe which comparison will not hold if the Lord Christ should be understood to be the Angell by whom the law was spoken 3. Some thinke that the thunder and lightning and voyce of the trumpet were caused by the ministerie of Angels but the voyce which delivered the law was from God himselfe Simler But the Apostle saith more that the word was spoken by the Angels 4. Some applie this text to the
usuall phrase in Scripture that the Lord speaketh of himselfe Tanquam de aliquo tertio As of some third person as chap. 19.11 The Lord himselfe saith to Moses The third day will the Lord come downe Lippom. 4. This further was admirable that all the whole host of Israel containing so many hundred thousand did at once heare and understand the voice wherein God spake unto them as Moses witnesseth Deut. 4.10 Iehovah spake unto you out of the middest of the fire and you heard the voice of the words I remember that Chrysostome in a certaine homily did gesse there were about 100. thousand that were then present to heare him but in the campe of Israel there being 600000. men of warre above twenty beside the young and old women and strangers which might well make five times so many toward 30. hundred thousand as Tostatus and others conjecture it was a wonderfull and strange thing that one voice should be heard of them all as Iosephus saith Omnes audiebant vocem sublimi descendentem ut nemo non intelligeret All heard the voice that came downe from above so that there was none which did not understand and as Cajetane saith Proportionata erat tam propinquis quà m distantebus auditoribus The voice was so proportioned that all heard both neere and further off And therefore it is called A great voice Deut. 5.22 5. And where it is said All these words the meaning is the ten Commandements only to the 18. verse of this twenty chapter for all the Judicials and Ceremonials following were not uttered by the voice of the trumpet but delivered to Moses Tostat. And these words were spoken in this order here set downe and as they were afterward graven in the two tables of stone Moses doth not set them downe altogether after the same manner Deut. 5. which hee doth as an interpreter and expounder of the law Iun. QUEST VIII Why it pleased God himselfe to speake to his people in the giving of the law NOw it pleased God himselfe to pronounce this law in the hearing of the people for these reasons 1. To win the more authority unto his Commandements that they should not contemne and despise them afterward Ferus As Moses afterward rendreth this reason vers 2. That his feare may bee before you that you sinne not Burgens 2. That they might afterward give more credit unto Moses the Lord speaking unto him in the hearing of the people So the Lord himselfe saith Loe I come unto thee in a thicke cloud that the people may heare whiles I talke with thee and that they may beleeve thee for ever chap. 19.9 3. That the people might know that the Lord was their Lawgiver that he and none other did prescribe them Lawes and that to him and none other they should yeeld obedience 4. The people hereby had experience of Gods mercy that vouchsafed to speake unto mortall men as they themselves confesse Wee have seene this day that God talketh with man and he liveth Deut. 5.24 Burgens QUEST IX Of the division of the Morall law NOw the Morall law is first divided according to the subject and matter into two tables the first comprehending those precepts which concerne the worship of God in the foure first Commandements the second those which command the duties to our neighbour This division is warranted by our blessed Saviour Matth. 22.37 dividing the law into two generall or great Commandements Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. This is the first and the great Commandement and the second is like unto it Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe Simler And the reason of this division is that by this order in setting our duty toward God before our duty toward our neighbour the greatnesse and eminencie of the one over the other should be manifest according to the Apostles rule It is better to obey God than man Act. 4.19 And therefore our blessed Saviour calleth the first the great Commandement Vrsin Iosephus then is deceived who putteth five Commandements to the first table making the fift Commandement of honouring the parents one of them But beside the former reason that the precepts onely commanding our duty toward God belong to the first table S. Paul convinceth him who calleth the fift Commandement the first with promise Ephes. 6.2 meaning the first of the second table but in Iosepus opinion it should be the last of the first table Simler Another reason of this division of the tables in setting the precepts first which prescribe our duty toward God is to teach us that no morall or civill duties as of justice chastity sobriety are pleasing unto God if they do not proceed from faith and from an heart setled aright in the true worship of God And therefore those glorious outward workes among the Heathen of justice fortitude temperance were not true vertues before God because they proceeded not from the knowledge and feare of God 2. Another division of the law is into the severall particular parts whereof it consisteth that is ten Commandements therefore called ten words Exod. 34.28 and Deut. 4.13 which are so many not because God delighteth in that number but because of the summe and argument of the things therein contained which are necessarily drawne to so many heads nothing being either omitted or superfluously added Vrsin 3. The law further in respect of the matter of the particular precepts is divided thus that generally in the morall law is contained the worship of God and the same either immediate or mediate The immediate which directly concerneth God is either internall both who is to bee worshipped prescribed in the first Commandement and after what manner with spirituall worship in the second or externall which is either private in not prophaning Gods name precept 3. or publike in the sanctifying of the Sabbath precept 4. The mediate service of God which indirectly is referred to him but directly and properly concerneth our neighbour is likewise either externall which consisteth either in speciâ—ll offices as of the mutuall duties betweene superiours and inferiours precept 5. or generall toward all sorts of men as in the preserving of our neighbours life precept 6. of his chastity precept 7. of his goods precept 8. of the truth precept 9. The internall is in the rectifying our very desires and inward affections toward our neighbours precept 10. Vrsin Which subdivision is very apt and fit saâ—ing that hee maketh all the law but one great Commandement the worship of God whereas our Saviour divideth it into two which division of necessity must be received Some concurring with Vrsinus in the subdivision of the first table doe otherwise distribute the second in this manner it commandeth either speciall duties of some certaine callings in the 5. or generall in the rest and that either in respect of our neighbour in the 6 7 8 9. or of God who knoweth the heart and so the very inward concupiscence is forbidden in
the 10. So Pelacherus Pelargus Iunius in his Analysis somewhat differeth the first table he subdivideth thus that it prescribeth first the worship of God who is to be worshipped in the first and after what manner in the second 2. The profession of this worship in the third 3. The meanes belonging to the worship of God in the sanctifying of the Sabbath and the religious exercises thereof The second table he likewise divideth thus into speciall duties in the 5. common duties in the 6 7 8 9. and into the roote and spring of all the concupiscence of the heart in the 10. Now of all these divisions I have made choice to follow Vrsinus and Pelatherus in the first and Iunius in the second table as is set downe before in the method and argument of the chapter QUEST X. Whether foure Commandements or three only belong to the first table IT followeth as we have seene the division of the whole law and of the number of the precepts in generall so to consider of the number of the particular commandements to be assigned unto each table The opinion of the Romanists is that there are but three Commandements to the first table putting the two first into one and seven to the second dividing the last Thou shalt not covet into two So Tostat. quaest 2. Ferus with others and of this opinion is Augustine quaest 71. in Exod. Some other doe make five Commandements in each table as Iosephus lib. 3. de Antiquit. cap. 6. But this opinion is confuted before And beside Iosephus reason is nothing for he thinketh that the two tables being written both within and without that two Commandements and an halfe were written of a side for the foure first Commandements will take up more roome and space in writing than all the six of the second table This opinion is ascribed to Hesychius in his Commentary upon Leviticus that rejecting the fourth Commandement of the Sabbath yet he maketh foure in the first table and six in the second but if the fourth Commandement be excepted there will bee but nine in all for these Commandements as they were delivered here by the Lord himselfe are called the ten words Exod. 32.28 The common and received opinion is that foure Commandements teaching our duty toward God are to be referred to the first table and six to the last So Origen hom 8. in Exod. Nazianzen in Carmin Chrys. hom 49. in Matth. Oper. imperfect Zonaras tom 1. Hieron in cap. 6. ad Ephes. And Ambrose upon the same place Sulpitius Severus lib. 1. histor sacra Ex Simler Vrsin Procopius also holdeth this precept Thou shalt make to thy selfe no graven image to be the second So also Rupertus lib. 3. cap. 32. Now the reasons to strengthen this opinion against the first which the Romanists follow are these 1. Because those precepts which differ in sense and matter are divers and not one such are the first Thou shalt have no other Gods c. and the second Thou shalt make no graven image for one may offend in the first as they which worship the Sunne and Moone and yet make no graven image and some may transgresse in the second and not in the first as the Romanists themselves which worship graven images and yet we will not thinke so hardly of them that professedly they would make other Gods So then the matter of these two Commandements being divers as the first shewing who and none other is to be worshipped the second in what manner they must be two precepts and not one 2. The distinction which Moses maketh is to be observed the last Commandement of not coveting the neighbours house and wife are joyned in one verse as shewing but one Commandement but these two are severed in two verses which sheweth a division and distinction of the precepts the matter also differing for otherwise in the fourth Commandement there are divers verses but the agreement in the matter sheweth that they all belong unto one precept 3. The last Commandement which they divide into two shall be proved afterward when we come to that place to be but one whole and entire Commandement and this one reason shall suffice in this place because Moses repeating this last precept Deut. 5.21 doth put in the first place Thou shalt we covet thy neighbours wife which is here placed in the second so that if they were not all one Commandement it would be uncertaine which should goe before the other As for the reasons of the contrary opinion they are of no value Augustine would have but three precepts in the first table to expresse the Trinity but the beleefe of the Trinity is commanded in the first precept directly and therefore need not bee insinuated in the number Another reason is because man oweth three things unto God fidelitatem reverentiam cultum fidelity reverence worship Lyraâ— As though worship also includeth not reverence Ferus maketh other three the first precept requireth us to worship God in heart the second to confesse him with the mouth the third to acknowledge him in our workes All this being acknowledged that this must bee yeelded unto God yet another precept must of necessity goe before as the foundation of the rest that wee must acknowledge but one onely true God QUEST XI Whether all Morall precepts as of loving of God and our neighbour be reduced to the Decalogue NExt followeth to bee considered whether all Morall duties may bee reduced unto these ten Commandements 1. It will be objected that they are not because there is no mention made in the Decalogue of the love of God and our neighbour therefore all Morall precepts are not thither referred To this 1. Thomas answereth that these precepts are written in the heart by the law of nature that God and our neighbour are to bee loved and therefore they needed not to bee given in precept Contra. By the same reason then they needed not to be mentioned in Scripture at all if they were so manifest by the law of nature yea the grounds of all the Morall precepts are printed in our nature and yet the Lord thought it necessary to write them in his law 2. Burgensis answereth thus that like as in speculative artes and sciences they use to proceed from knowne and manifest conclusions and principles to those which are more obscure So the Lord propoundeth his law in the easiest and plainest precepts as in the second Commandement It is easier to abstaine from idolatry than from other kindes of superstition and in the sixth a man will abhor murder which cannot so soone decline all other wrongs and injuries These precepts of loving God above all and our neighbour as our selfe because they were hard and difficult the Lord would not propound them at the first to a rude and ignorant people but reserved them till another time when the people were growne more able and strong as in that 40. yeere in the wildernesse then Moses beginneth to explaine this law
offend against this precept Qui Christi cognitione carent quae cognitio non alia re quà m fide in Christum constet Which want the knowledge of Christ which knowledge consisteth in nothing else than in faith in Christ. Marbach Commentar in hunc locum Against this opinion that faith in Christ is not commanded in the Morall law the reasons follow afterward but first the question must further be explaned 1. First then we are to distinguish of faith which is of foure kindes or sorts 1. There is fides initialis or fundamentalis the faith of beginnings or the fundamentall faith whereof the Apostle speaketh Hebr. 11.6 That he which commeth unto God must beleeve that God is c. And this kinde of faith toward God the Apostle referreth to the doctrine of beginnings Heb. 6. 1. This faith apprehendeth onely the being and essence of God to know him to be the only Lord. 2. There is another faith called fides miraculorum the faith of miracles touched by the Apostle 1. Cor 13.2 If I had all faith so that I could remove mountaines 3. There is fides historica an historicall faith which beleeveth all things to bee true that are written in the Scriptures in which sense S Iames saith The Devils beleeve and tremble they beleeve there is a God and that all is true which the Scripture speaketh of God of his justice power punishing of sinners rewarding of the righteous 4. There is beside these a justifying faith whereof S. Paul maketh mention In that I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Sonne of God who hath loved me and given himselfe for me Galath 2.20 This faith is the life of the soule whereby hee which beleeveth is able in particular to apply unto himselfe the merits of Christs death Now this is the difference betweene these foure kindes of faith the first apprehendeth the essence and being of God the second the faith of miracles his power the third which is the historicall faith his truth the fourth namely the justifying faith his mercie The three first to beleeve God to be to beleeve him to bee omnipotent to beleeve him to be just and true are included in the first precept Thou shalt have no other Gods c. but not the last wherein is the errour of the Romanists that make all these kindes of faith the same in substance differing only in property which if it were true then it were possible for them that have the one faith to have the other and so Devils also which in some sort doe beleeve should also be capable of justifying faith But this matter that all these kindes of faith are not the same in substance nor of like nature with the justifying faith is shewed elsewhere whither I referre the Reader 2. Further we are to distinguish of the law for it is taken sometime more largely either for all the Scriptures of the old Testament as Luk 16.17 It is more easie that heaven and earth should passe away than that one title of the law should fall So Ioh. 15.25 It is written in their law they have hated mee without a cause which testimony is found in the Psalmes Psal. 35.19 or else the law is taken for all the bookes of Moses and so the Law and Prophets are named together Matth. 7.12 This is the Law and the Prophets But the law is sometime taken more strictly for the Morall law whereof the Apostle speaketh Rom. 7. I knew not sinne but by the law and so S. Paul opposeth the law of workes to the law of faith Rom. 3.27 Now as the law is taken generally either for all the old Scriptures written by the Prophets or for the writings of Moses it cannot be denied but that faith in Jesus Christ is in this sense both contained and commanded in the law for of Christ the Lord spake by the mouth of his Prophets Luk. 1.70 And Moses wrote of Christ as our Saviour saith Had yee beleeved Moses yee would have beleeved me for Moses wrote of mee Ioh. 5.45 But as the law is taken strictly for the Morall law the law of workes which containeth only the ten words or Commandements so we deny this justifying faith to bee commanded in the law 3. Indirectly or by way of consequent it will not bee denied but that this faith also is implied in the law because we are bound by the law to beleeve the Scriptures and the whole word of God for this is a part of Gods worship to beleeve his word to be true and so some define faith Est certa persuafio qua assentimur omni verbo Dei nobis tradita It is a certaine perswasion whereby wee give assent to all the word of God Vrsin And so by this precept wee are bound to receive all the promises and doctrines concerning Christ delivered in the old and new Testament But directly as a part and branch and so a worke of the law wee deny justifying faith to be in this precept or any other prescribed or commanded The reasons are these 1. The Morall law and the Gospell differ in the very nature and substance for the one is naturally imprinted in the heart of man the other is revealed and wrought by grace The first the Apostle testifieth where he saith The Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law Rom. 2.14 The other also is witnessed by the same Apostle Rom. 2.24 We are justified freely by his grace The argument then may be framed thus The morall law is graft in the heart of man by nature but faith in Christ is not by nature but by grace above nature for if it were naturall all men should have faith which the Apostle denieth 2. Thessal 3.2 Faith then in Christ belongeth not to the law Therefore it is strange that Bellarmine confessing in another place that pracepta decalogi sunt explicationes juris natura that the precepts of the decalogue are the explications of the law of nature Lib. 2. de Imaginib Sanctor cap. 7. could not inferre hereupon that the precepts of faith and of the Gospell are no explications of the law of nature and therefore have no dependance of the morall law Ambrose useth this very argument Nemo sub lâ—ge fidem constituat lex enim intra mensuram ultra mensuram gratia Let no man place faith in the law for the law is within the measure and compasse of nature but grace is beyond measure Ambros. in 12. Luc. 2. The effects of the law of works and the law of faith are divers for the one worketh feare the other love and peace as the Apostle saith Ye have not received the spirit of bondage to feare againe but yee have received the spirit of adoption whereby we crie Abba Father Rom. 8.17 Againe the Apostle saith The letter killeth the Spirit giveth life 2 Cor. 2.6 Thus then the argument standeth the same thing cannot bee the instrument of
contrary things of life and death peace and terror love and feare for a Fountaine cannot make both salt water and sweet Iam. 3.12 But the law is the minister of death of feare and terror Ergo not of life and peace and so consequently not of the faith of the Gospell which bringeth all these 3. The same thing doth not both make the wound and give a plaister to heale it The law doth shew us our sinne faith by grace in Christ healeth it the law reviveth sinne Without the law sinne is dead Rom. 7.8 but we are dead to sinne and alive to God in Iesus Christ our Lord Rom. 6.11 The same cannot make us both to die unto sinne and revive sinne the law doth the one therefore not the other So Augustine saith Ad hoc data est lex ut vulnera ostenderet peccatorum qua gratiae benedictione sanaret Therefore was the law given that it should shew the wounds of our sinnes which it should heale by the benediction of grace August de poenitent medic 4. The Preachers publishers and givers of the law and Gospell are divers The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ Ioh. 1.17 But if justifying faith were commanded in the law then grace also should come by the ministrie of Moses that gave the law This is Bernards reason who further inferreth thus Venit prâ—inde gratia plenus veritate Dominus noster c. Therefore Christ our Lord came full of grace and truth that what could not bee done by the law might bee fulfilled by grace Serm. parâ— 28. 5. The qualities and conditions of the law and the Gospell are divers the law promiseth life to him that worketh Moses thus describeth the righteousnesse of the law That the man which doth these things shall live thereby Rom. 10.5 But the Gospell requireth not the condition of working but beleeving to him that worketh not but beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse Rom. 4.5 If then faith were commanded in the law to beleeve should also be a worke of the law then the Apostles conclusion were in vaine I conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law But if faith be excluded out of the works of the law then it is not commanded or contained in the law for then it should be a worke of the law 2. Further the invocation of Angels and Saints which is commonly practised and stifly maintained in the Church of Rome is another apparent transgression of this first commandement because they give a speciall part of the divine worship which consisteth in prayer and invocation unto the creature First we will see and examine the arguments produced by the Romanists in defence of this superstition and then by other reasons out of the Scriptures convince and confute them The Romanists Arguments answered brought in defence of the invocation of Saints 1. THe Saints doe pray for us therefore we may and ought to pray them The antecedent or first part that the Saints doe pray for us they would prove by these places of Scripture Exod. 32.13 Moses thus saith in his prayer Remember Abraham Izhak and Iakob thy servants c. Ierem. 15.1 Though Moses and Samuel stood before me yet could not my affection be toward this people Baruch 3.4 O Lord God almightie heare now the prayer of the dead Israelites 2 Macchab. 14.15 And Onias spake and said This is a lover of the brethren who prayeth much for the peoplâ— to wit Ieremias the Prophet of the Lord. Answ. 1. As for the testimonies cited out of Baruch and the booke of Macchabees they prove nothing because they are no books of Canonicall Scripture 2. The other testimonies are impertinently alleaged for in the first Moses maketh no mention of the prayers which Abraham Izhak and Iakob should make for the people but of the covenant which the Lord made with them In the other of an hypotheticall and conditionall proposition they make a categoricall and absolute affirmation The text is If Moses and Samuel stood they inferre that Moses and Samuel did stand Simler But it may better be answered that if these were alive among the people to stand before the Lord for them in prayer c. as see the like Ezech. 14.14 Though these three men Noah Daniel and Iob were among them they should deliver but their owne soules by their righteousnesse 3. The Saints doe pray unto God by their generall wishes and desires as wishing that the Kingdome of God were accomplished as Revel 6.10 The soules under the Altar crie with a loud voyce saying How long Lord c. doest thou not judge and avenge our bloud But our particular necessities they are ignorant of and so doe noâ— make particular requests for us therefore the argument followeth not they pray by their generall desires for the Church Ergo they pray for us in particular 4. Seeing that the Romanists doe hold that the Patriarks and Fathers of the old Testament were in Limbo which they make a member or part of hell they doe contradict themselves in making them mediatours and intercessours in heaven 2. Argum. The Angels they say know our affaires and pray for us As Zachar. 1.12 The Angell of Iehovah answered and said O Lord of hosts how long wilt thou bee unmercifull to Ierusalem c. Therefore it is lawfull to pray to the Angels Answ. 1. That the Angels doe report our affaires unto God and so may make relation of our prayers and words also as of our other gests and acts unto God as the Lords messengers and ministers we will not denie but that they make any particular requests for men the Scripture no where speaketh and we are not bound to beleeve the relation of our prayers unto God is one thing and mediation and intercession is another 2. That Angell of Iehovah which prayed for Jerusalem was the Lord Christ who maketh intercession for his Church unto whom the rest of the Angels returne their message vers 11. who is also called Iehovah vers 20. 3. Neither doth it follow if it could bee proved out of Scripture that the Angels prayed foâ— us that we are to pray to them because they are not alwayes present to heare us and we are forbidden in Scripture to worship them Revel 22.9 and therefore to pray unto them which is a part of divine worship 3. Argum. The Saints that are living doe one pray for another much more the Saints being dead because their charitie is more perfect and seeing there is a communion of Saints as of the living so also of the dead which communion being not in faith and hope whereof there is no more use with them that are at rest it remaineth it is in charitie As therefore we may request the living to pray for us so we may pray the dead also to entreate for us Answer 1. The argument followeth not for the Saints alive doe one
God had no care of the Gentiles as of his owne people that were espoused unto him he is not said to be jealous of them 2. Hee suffered them to walke after their owne lusts not because hee could not have hindred them but the wise Creator permitteth the reasonable creature to follow the instinct of their nature yet calling some by grace whom he pleaseth and punishing the rest for abusing the light of nature who therefore were left inexcusable because knowing God by the creatures they yet did not glorifie him as God as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 1.21 QUEST V. Of the titles which the Lord here giveth himselfe and wherefore I Am the Lord thy God strong jealous c. The Lord giveth unto himselfe here foure severall titles the more to inforce this commination following 1. He calleth himselfe their God because he had taken them into his speciall protection and had bestowed many benefits upon them therefore they ought to love him more than any other Tostat. 2. He is a strong God potest se veluno nutu vindicare which can revenge himselfe at his becke Lippom. And he is strong as well to effect his promises to the obedient as to punish the disobedient Vrsin 3 Zelotes est nolens habere consortium in amando He is jealous he can abide no partner in that which he loveth Tostat. And this as well signifieth his indignation qua commovetur suis contumeliis whereby he is moved for the contumelies that are offered unto him Vatabl. as the love of God toward them for jealousie ariseth ex amore ejus qui laditur propter turpitudinem c. from the love of him that is hurt because of some uncleannesse committed c. Vrsin 4. Lastly in saying visiting the iniquitie he sheweth his severitie in tantum non connivet ad impietatem c. he is so farre from winking at impietie that hee punisheth it even in the posterity of the wicked and their sonnes and nephewes Lippom. QUEST 6. Of the generall commination and promise annexed VIsiting the iniquitie c. 1. Some take this to be a speciall perswasion added to this commandement Quia inter omnia praecepta nullum majus est quam hoc Because there is none among all the precepts greater than this The generall motive was set before because he brought them out of the land of Egypt Tostat. 2. But I approve rather their opinion which take this commination and promise to appertaine unto all the commandements but to be joyned to this because it is fundamentum caeterorum the foundation of the rest Vrsin Huic mandato tanquam principali ex quo alia oriuntur addidit Dominus minas c. To this commandement as the principall out of the which the other take their beginning the Lord added threatnings and promises c. Lippom. And this is confirmed by the words here following vers 6. to them that love me and keepe my commandements the Lord maketh mention of keeping his commandements not of one but of all 3. It might have pleased God simply to have propounded his commandements but he both adjoyneth promises to stirre up our dulnesse and threatnings to terrifie the perverse and froward which promises are rendred not as the deserved reward of our obedience for it is of mercie as the Lord saith shewing mercie unto thousands otherwise we doe no more than our dutie and therefore deserve nothing Simler QUEST VII How it standeth with Gods justice to punish the children for the fathers sinnes THe iniquitie of the fathers upon the children c. 1. Theodoret upon this place hath this singular opinion by himselfe Quod nudae literae insistere impium sit c. That it is evill to insist here upon the bare letter seeing the law saith The fathers shall not be put to death for the children nor the children for the fathers but every man shall be put to death for his owne sinne Deut. 24.16 And he addeth further Majores apud Deum sunt comminationes quà m poenae c. That God useth greater threatnings than punishments as every one that was not circumcised at the eight day is threatned to be cut off and yet many in the desert were uncircumcised at that age whom Ioshua circumcised in Gilgal and so here he thinketh that this is threatned onely to terrifie parents from sinning So Theodoret. Contra. 1. But this were to give great libertie to offenders to thinke that God onely threatneth for terror it might be inferred as well that God doth but dallie also with his promises as with his threatnings which were impious to thinke 2. If God doe not alwayes punish as hee threatneth it doth not argue any revocation of his judgements but his mercifull forbearing to call men unto repentance 3. That commination against the neglect of circumcision is not denounced against the infant whose fault it was not if he were not circumcised the eight day but against them that did not see it performed on their infant as appeareth by the example of Moses Exod. 4. punished for the neglect of circumcision And so accordingly all they which deferred the circumcision of their children in the wildernesse their carkase◠fell there 2. Origene maketh this allegoricall exposition The father that sinneth he maketh the Devill Pater peccati diabolus est The devill is the father of sinne all they are his children which doe his works Diabolus ergo dum hic mundus stat non recipit sua peccata c. The devill while this world standeth doth not receive punishment for his sinnes redduntur infilios i. in eos quos genuit per peccatum but upon his children whom he hath begotten by sinne are their sinnes rendred for men while they are in the flesh are corrected of God c. Contra. But that this is a forced and farre fetcht exposition the other opposite part manifesteth of the Lords shewing mercie unto thousands but the devils expect no mercie And againe seeing this commination is specially made to terrifie wicked parents it can no wayes concerne the Devill to whom the law was not given but unto men 3. Hugo de S. Victor giveth this reason why children are punished for the sinnes of their fathers because they are Sicut aliquod membrum ipsorum quia in ipsis malefactoribus quo dammodo erant seminaliter peccabant They are as a part of them because they were in seed in the malefactors themselves and so in a manner sinned in them Contra. But the Prophet saith the same soule that sinneth shall die the children being but yet in the loynes of their fathers as the tree in the seed had no soules therefore then could they not sinne 4. Some doe reconcile this law and that other Deut. 24. where it is said that the fathers shall not be put to death for the children nor the children for the fathers after this manner that there a rule is given for the proceedings in civill judgement that one shall not suffer for another
lawes which were instituted before Moses are immutable and perpetuall but such was the institution of the Sabbath Answ. The proposition is not true for the fathers before Moses used to offer sacrifices Circumcision was given to Abraham even from the beginning there was a difference betweene cleane and uncleane beasts and yet all these being types and figures of things to come are abrogated by Christ. Simler 3. Object The lawes given before mans fall in the state of his innocencie could bee no types of the Messiah being not yet promised and therefore they doe bind all Adams posteritie such was the sanctifying of the Sabbath Answ. 1. Such lawes the ground whereof was printed in the soule of man in the creation as are all morall precepts are perpetuall but not all in generall given unto Adam as was the prohibition to eat of the tree of life Vrsin 2. But it may be further answered that the Sabbath was not instituted before mans fall for he is held to have fallen upon the sixth day the same day wherein he was created as it is at large handled in that question upon the 3. of Genesis 3. This law of sanctifying the Sabbath in substance remaineth still though the ceremonie of the day be changed 4. Object The keeping of the Sabbath is called an everlasting covenant Exod. 31.16 it is therefore to remaine for ever Answ. 1. So Circumcision is called an everlasting covenant because they were to continue till the comming of the Messiah and so long as the Common-wealth of Israel continued to them it was perpetuall but now their state being dissolved the covenants made with them are expired also Simler 2. It is called everlasting in respect of the signification and substance thereof our rest in Christ and so it remaineth still and shall for ever as the Kingdome of David in the Messiah shall never have end Vrsin 5. Object The reason and cause of the law is immutable namely the memoriall of the creation therefore the law it selfe also and seeing the knowledge of the creation is necessarie so also is the symbole and monument thereof the celebration of the seventh day Answ. 1. The cause or reason of a law being immutable the law it selfe also is immutable if it bee so tied unto the law as that it cannot stand if the law be changed but so is it not here for the creation may as well be remembred upon another day as upon the seventh Vrsin 2. All the sacrifices and ceremonies of the law were symboles and signes of necessary things as Circumcision the paschall Lambe of the Circumcision of the heart and of the Messiah which things remaine still but the symboles are abolished Simler Now then that Christians are not bound unto the Jewish Sabbath it is evident by these reasons 1. By the doctrine of the Apostles Galath 4.10 You observe dayes and moneths times and yeares I am in feare of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vaine and by name S. Paul speaking of the Sabbaths saith They were shadowes of things to come but the bodie is in Christ Coloss. 2.16 2. The Apostles by their example shewed that the Jewish Sabbath was determined for they began to keepe the first day of the weeke Act. 20.7 and 1 Cor. 16.2 3. All types and shadowes were but to continue untill the bodie came which was Christ but the Sabbath was one of those shadowes 4. The Sabbath was a note of cognizance and a worke of distinction and difference betweene the Israelites and other people which difference and partition is now taken away in Christ for now there is neither Jew nor Grecian but all are one in Christ Galath 4.28 Ex Vrsin In Gregories time there were Qui die Sabbati aliquid operari prohiberent which did prohibite to doe any worke upon the Sabbath or Saturday whom he refelleth thus Quos quid aliud nisi Antichristi praedicatores dixerim c. whom what else should I call than the preachers of Antichrist who when he commeth shall cause both the Sabbath and the Lords day to be kept without doing any worke for because he shall faine himselfe to die and rise againe hee shall cause the Lords day to be had in reverence and because he shall compell them unto Judaisme he shall likewise command the Sabbath to be kept And thus he concludeth Nos quod de Sabbato scriptum est spiritualiter accipimus c. We spiritually observe that which is written of the Sabbath for the Sabbath signifieth rest Verum autem Sabbatum Redemptorem nostrum habemus and we have our Redeemer and Saviour our true Sabbath 2. Cont. Against the Iewes carnall observing of the Sabbath BEside this that the Jewes would enforce upon us their Sabbath they have another errour in the manner of keeping their Sabbath which they solemnize in taking their ease in eating and drinking and giving themselves over to all pleasure and licentiousnesse for as Burgensis reporteth of them The Jewes thinke they are bound upon every Sabbath to eat thrice that is one dinner and two suppers and in so doing they shall escape the punishment of hell Burgens addition 4. Contra. 1. Thus their forefathers kept an holy day to the golden Calfe in eating and drinking and rising up to play God will not be so served 2. The way to Paradise is a strait and narrow way by many afflictions we must enter into the Kingdome of heaven not eating and drinking and taking our pleasure 3. Augustine saith Quanto melius foeminae eorum lanam facerent quà m in neomeniis saltarent How much better might their women spinne than dance in their new moones Tract 4. in Ioan. 4. Chrysostome also thus proveth that the Sabbath is not â—tii but spiritualis actionis materia not an occasion of idlenesse but of spirituall exercise because the Priests were by the law upon that day to offer double sacrifice but if it were a day of ease Oportebat Sacerdotem omnium maximè otium agere it was meet that the Priest most of all should take his ease then Concion de Lazaro 3. Cont. Of the Iewes superstition in the precise and strict keeping of the Sabbath rest AGaine the Jewes were superstitiously addicted to the corporall rest which they would not breake upon any occasion as our Chronicles doe make mention of a Jew that being fallen into a jakes refused to be taken out thence upon their Sabbath day and the next day being the Lords day the Governour would not suffer him to be pulled out upon that day because it was the Christians Sabbath and so the wilfull Jew there perished Of the like strictnesse were some among the Christians in keeping of the externall rest upon the Lords day therein imitating the Jewes as Gregorie in the fore-cited place writeth how some did forbid any to wash themselves upon the Lords day whom he thus confuteth 1. Si pro luxu animi ac voluptatis quis lavari appetit c. If any man
attende c. In all thy works wait for the Lords recompence that he will prepare eternall rest for thy reward and this it is to sanctifie the Sabbath So Augustine Spiritualiter observa Sabbatum in spe futurae quietis Observe the Sabbath spiritually in hope of the everlasting reward Libr. de 10. Chord All hypocrites therefore that keepe the Sabbath rest rather for feare of humane lawes than of conscience which also come before the Lord with a dissembling heart are transgressors of this Commandement for he that will truly consecrate the Sabbath unto the Lord must call it a delight Isa. 58.13 he must with all his soule delight therein 2. Observ. Against those which spend the Lords day in carnall delight TO sanctifie it The rest then of the Sabbath is commanded not as though it were in it selfe a thing acceptable unto God but that wee might the better attend upon Gods service They therefore which give themselves upon the Lords day to ease and idlenesse pampering and feeding themselves following their owne will and pleasure doe not sanctifie the Sabbath unto the Lord for hee that will consecrate a Sabbath as glorious unto the Lord must not doe his owne wayes nor seeke his owne will as the Prophet sheweth Isai. 58.13 Against such which carnally spent the Sabbath in pleasure and delight the same Prophet speaketh Wo unto them c. The Harpe and Violl Timbrell and Pipe are in their feasts Isai. 5.12 And of such Chrysostome saith well Accepisti Sabbatum ut animam tuam liberares à vitiis tu verò magis illa committis Thou hast received the Sabbath to free thy soule from vice and by this meanes thou doest commit it the more 3. Observ. No worke must be put off untill the Lords day THou shalt not doe any worke Here then such covetous and worldly minded men are taxed which cannot afford one day of seven for the Lord but toile themselves therein with bodily labour as if they have a job of worke of their weeks taske to doe they will dispatch it upon the Lords day if they have any journey to take they will put it off till then for feare of hindring their other worke therefore the Lord meeting with mens covetous humours forbiddeth all kinde of worke to be done therein Gregorie giveth two reasons why upon the Lords day we should cease from all terrene labour because Omni modo orationibus insistendum We should altogether attend upon prayer and spirituall exercises such works then must be shunned because they are an hinderance unto the service of God And againe Si quid negligéntiae per sex diesagitur c. if any thing have beene negligently done in the six dayes that upon the day of the resurrection of our Lord precibus expietur it may be expiate and purged by prayer Gregor in Registro lib. 11. epist. 3. We should not then commit more sinnes of negligence when we should pray for forgivenesse of our errours and negligence Cajetane giveth a good note upon this word Remember Ad hoc servit recordatio ut non reserves aliquid operandum in diem septimum c. therefore serveth this remembrance that no jot or worke be reserved till the seventh day 4. Observ. It is not enough for the master of the familie to keepe the Lords day unlesse his whole familie also doe sanctifie it THou nor thy sonne nor thy daughter c. This is added to reprove their nice curiositie who though themselves will seeme to make conscience of the Lords day are content yet that their children and servants doe breake it and put them to labour or suffer them to mispend the day in vaine pleasure thinking it sufficient if the master of the house keepe the rest of the Lords day But every good Christian must resolve with Ioshua I and my house will serve the Lord chap. 24.15 He thought it not enough for himselfe to be addicted to Gods service unlesse his whole familie also served the Lord. So then none are exempted here from keeping the Sabbath Nullus sexus nulla aetas nulla conditio c. no sex no age no condition is excluded from the observing the Sabbath Gloss. interlin Neither young nor old male or female master or servant Vpon the fifth Commandement 1. Divers Questions and difficulties discussed and explained QUEST I. Whether this precept belong to the first Table 12. HOnour thy father c. Iosephus with some other Hebrewes doe make this fifth Commandement the last of the first Table both to make the number even in both Tables and because mention is made here of Jehovah as in none of the other Commandements of the second Table and because it was fit that as the first table began with our dutie toward God our heavenly Father so it should end with our dutie toward our earthly parents Contra. These are no sufficient reasons for this division of the Commandements 1. For though the foure first Commandements in number answer not the other yet they are in the writing upon the Tables more and conteine a greater space than the other six and better it is to divide the Commandements by the matter referring onely those to the first Table which containe the worship of God than by the number 2. The name Jehovah is expressed in other judiciall and ceremoniall lawes which follow which belong not either to the first or second Table 3. The third reason better sheweth why this Commandement should begin the second Table then end the first 4. And whereas some object that place Rom. 13.9 where the Apostle rehearseth the five Commandements following omitting this as though it belonged not to the second Table the reason of that omission is because the Apostle directly in that place had treated before of the dutie toward the higher Powers and Superiours who are comprehended under the name of parents But our Saviour putteth all out of doubt Matth. 19.19 where he placeth this Commandement last in rehearsing the precepts of the second Table and joyneth it with that generall precept Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe Calvin QUEST II. Why the precepts of the second Table are said to be like unto the first NOw our Saviour reduceth all the precepts of the second Table to one generall Commandement Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe and saith it is like unto the first in these respects 1. Because the second Table of the morall law as well as the first hath a preeminence and excellencie above the ceremonials and therefore in regard of this dignitie and prioritie it is like unto the first 2. Because the same kinde of punishment even everlasting death is threatned against every transgression as well of the second as of the first Table 3. In regard of the coherence and dependance which the one hath of the other as the cause and the effect for a man cannot love his brother unlesse he first have the feare of God whose image he reverenceth in his brother
Commandements following Tostat. qu. 19. Contra. 1. Paulus Burgensis doth herein finde fault with Lyranus for it is evident by that sentence borrowed from Augustine that he which suffereth his brother to perish when it is in his power to helpe him in effect killeth him and so is a transgressor against the sixth Commandement Thou shalt not kill 2. And as for the workes of mercy they are commanded in those severall precepts where the contrary is forbidden as the same Law which forbiddeth to take away a mans life commandeth us if it be in our power to preserve it and where we are inhibited to take away our neighbours goods wee are likewise willed to relieve him with ours where there is cause and in the same Commandement where it is made unlawfull to take away our neighbours good name it is enjoyned that wee should by all meanes seeke to preserve it QUEST XVII Of the true reading and meaning of these words that they may prolong it THat thy dayes may be prolonged But in the originall it is put in the active that they may prolong as read Iun. Momanus 1. Some referre it unto the parents that they by their prayers and blessings may cause the life of their children to be prolonged Oleaster As in the same sense they are said to receive them into everlasting tabernacles Luk. 16.4 and men are said to save 1. Timoth. 4.16 and Iam. 5.20 sic Iun. 2. Ab. Ezra understandeth it of the precepts and commandements which shall procure long life to those which obey them 3. But the verbe is rather here taken impersonally and in the signification of a verbe neuter That thy dayes may prolong that is may bee lengthened so the Childe And it is an usuall phrase with the Hebrewes to put the active in a passive signification as Iob 4.19 They shall destroy them before the moth that is they shall bee destroyed and Iob 7.3 They have appointed painefull nights unto mee that is were appointed unto me Iun. And this seemeth rather to bee the sense because Saint Paul so taketh it Ephes. 6.3 That it may be will with thee and that thou maist live long in the earth Simler QUEST XVIII In what sense the Apostle calleth this the first Commandement with promise BUt whereas Saint Paul saith that this is the first Commandement with promise Ephes. 6.2 hereupon this doubt ariseth in what sense the Apostle so calleth it seeing there is annexed unto the second Commandement a large promise of shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love God Hereunto divers solutions are made 1. Hierom bringeth in two expositions yet resolving of neither As first how some doe take the whole Decalogue because it was first given unto the Israelites after their comming out of Egypt for one Commandement and so would have this promise not peculiar unto this precept but unto all the rest But this is against the Apostles meaning for he doth annex this promise as peculiar to this duty of honouring our parents and calleth this the first Commandement with promise 2. Others doe thinke that in the second Commandement Non tam promissionem prolatam quà m sententiam in landes Dei esse finitam That it is not so much a pronouncing of a promise as an ending of the sentence in the praises of God but herein the fifth Commandement the promise is divided from the precept and the sentence is broken off and not continued as there But Hieroms reason overthroweth this answer Observa quòd verba sunt sponsiones c. Observe that these are words of covenant shewing mercy unto thousands and they are added as a reason joyned to the Commandements Hieron in 6. ad Ephes. 3. Ambrose understandeth the Apostle thus Hac causa dixit quod est mandatum primum in promissione ut discerneret inter mandata quae ad Deum mandata quae ad homines pertinent Therefore he said Which is the first Commandement with promise that he should discerne betweene the Commandements which appertaine unto God and those which belong unto men Ambros. in 6. ad Ephes. His meaning is that it is the first precept of the second Table with promise 4. But I rather resolve with Simlerus and Vrsinus that this is the first precept that hath any speciall and particular promise the other promise added to the second Commandement is generall to all those that love God and so not restrained only to that precept but is extended generally to the obedience of the whole law QUEST XIX Why the promise of long life is made to obedient children THat thy dayes may belong c. 1. Cajetane giveth this reason why this promise of long life is made to obedient children Tanquam gratis acceptâ— Ã parentibus beneficio vitae As being thankfull for the benefit of life received of their parents for it is fit that they which are thankfull to their benefactors should enjoy the benefit long Calvine also to the same purpose God doth shew his favour in prolonging of this life Vbi erga eos grati sumus quibus â—am acceptam ferre cenvenit When we are thankfull to those of whom we have received it So also Thomas Qui non honorat parentes tanquam ingratus meretur vita privari He that honoureth not his parents deserveth as an ungratefull man to bee deprived of life which he received of his parents 2. Thomas Aquin. also yeeldeth another reason In those precepts it was necessary to adde a promise ex quibus videbatur nulla utilitas sequi vel aliquae utilitas impediri where no profit was either not expected or seemed to be hindred therefore in the second Commandement which forbiddeth idolatry a generall promise is propounded because by the worship of Idols Idolaters looked for great benefits which seemed by this meanes to be cut off and because parents being aged are wearing away ab eis non expectatur utilitas no profit is expected from them and therefore a promise is put to this precept of honouring parents Sic Thom. 1.2 qu. 100. art 7. ad 3. But this reason seemeth somewhat curious 3. Oleaster rendreth this reason Because parents doe prolong the childrens dayes precibuâ— by their blessings and prayers 4. Thomas addeth further this reason is put to ne credatur non deberi praemium c. lest a reward might be thought not to be due for the honouring of parents because it is naturall QUEST XX. What other blessings are promised under long life BY long life here not only the lengthening of dayes is understood but other benefits also 1. Tostatus giveth this reason because without other temporall blessings vita laboriose miserabiliter ducitur mans life seemeth to be but full of labour and misery and so no blessing quaest 20. 2. Pelargus thus distinguisheth these blessings Vt triplex honor ita triplex pramium As a threefold honour is to be yeelded to parents so a threefold reward is promised pro honore obediâ—ntiae vita gloriosa for the honour
then neither is it understood of brute beasts Quia nulla nobis rationâ— sociantur because they are not partakers of reason with us thus August lib. 1. de civitat Dei cap. 20. 2. Thomas useth this reason Non est peccatum uti illis quae sunt subdita hominis potestati c. It is no sinne to use those things which are subject to mans power and made for mans use for there is a certaine naturall order that plants are for the nourishment of beasts and beasts feed one upon another Omnia in nutrimentum hominum c. and all are appointed for the nourishment of man and the Lord hath given unto man this liberty As the greene herbe have I given you all things Gen. 9.3 The Apostle also sheweth the Lawfulnesse hereof Whatsoever is sold in the shambles eat yee and aske no question for conscience sake 1. Cor. 10.25 Thom. in opuscul 3. Cajetane addeth further that it is lawfull to kill beasts Vt vescamur eis vel ne molesta sint nobis To feed upon them or that they be not noisome unto us 4. And the word ratzach here used in the opinion of the Hebrewes signifieth properly to kill a man and therefore there need to be no doubt made of the lawfulnesse of killing other creatures for mans use Simler Cajetan QUEST III. Of the divers kindes of killing THou shalt not kill There are divers kindes of killing some doe kill the soule onely some the body only some both the body and soule 1. They kill the soule which seduce and pervert it as therefore the Devill is said to be a murderer from the beginning Ioh. 8. In quantum traxit ad peccatum because hee drâ—w our first parents into sinne 2. The body and soule is killed two wayes occidendo pragnantes in killing of women with childe for so the infant conceived is deprived both of body and soule Secundo interficiendo seipsum secondly when one killeth himselfe for beside the death of the body they bring their soule into danger Thom. in opuscul 3. The body is killed also divers wayes for Homicidium est internum externum murder is either inward or outward the inward is of two sorts either conceptum conceived as in anger hatred desire of revenge which our Saviour forbiddeth Matth. 5.22 or permissum when it is permitted or suffred when one consenteth unto another mans death Rom. 1.31 They doe not only the same things but favour them that doe them Pelarg. Thom. The externall is committed three wayes manu by the hand as in beating wounding and lastly killing or ore with the mouth in railing reviling giving evill counsell and adjutorio by ministring helpe and so being accessary in killing Thom. This externall murder is either Verbis exâ—ptatum gestu attentatum opere designatum wished in word attempted in gesture or designed in deed Pelarg. QUEST IV. How the soule is killed by evill perswasion FIrst then the seducing and perverting of the soule is a principall breach of this Commandement as Piscator well observeth that seductio animae the seducing of the soule is one of the transgressions of this precept 1. Augustines reason is taken from the practice of the Devill Homicida Diabolus non gladio armatus c. verbum malum seminavit occidit The Devill is a murderer he came not unto man with armour or weapons he sowed evill seed by tempting them and so slew them In Ioan. tract 42. 2. Thomas useth this reason Occidunt animam auferendo vitam gratiae They slay the soule by taking away the life of grace So Augustine concludeth Si fratri tuo mala persuades occidis If thou perswade evill unto thy brother thou killest him ibid. QUEST V. That it is not lawfull for a man to kill himselfe SOme thinke that by this precept man is forbidden to kill another but not himselfe But that it is a speciall offence against this law for any man to lay violent hands upon himselfe it may be thus shewed 1. Augustines reason is Neque enim qui se occidit aliud quà m hominem occidit Neither hee which killeth himselfe doth any other than kill a man 2. Pelargus useth this reason Praeceptum eum ipsum comprehendâ— cui praecipitur A precept being simply propounded without any other addition comprehendeth him also to whom the precept is given in that it is said therefore Thou shalt not kill it is insinuated that thou shalt not kill thy selfe 3. Because our life is the gift of God it cannot be taken away from whomsoever without great impiety and Facit injuriam humano generi he that killeth himselfe doth wrong unto humane society in depriving the Commonwealth of a member thereof Basting 4. The same reasons why a man should not kill his neighbour because he is the image of God hee is our flesh and one of Christs members for whom he died are strong to perswade one not to kill himselfe for no man ever hated his owne flesh Vrsinus 5. Whereas it is objected that Sampson killed himselfe the answer is he did it Instinctu Spiritus Dei By the instinct of Gods Spirit so that hee did it Authoritate Dei By Gods authority Thomas QUEST VI. The inward murder of the heart forbidden NOt only the externall act of murther is here forbidden but the internall also by hasty rage malice hatred envy and such like 1. Lex Dei spiritualis est The law of God is spirituall and therefore iâ— bindeth not only the hands and tongue but the heart also and affections as our blessed Saviour the best interpreter of the law teacheth If one be angry with his brother unadvisedly he shall be culpable of judgement Matth. 5.22 Gallas 2. Another reason is because he qui irascitur sine causa quamum ad voluâ—â—â—tem homicidium fecit which is angry without a cause in respect of his owne will and purpose hath committed manslaughter Chrysost. hom 11. in Matth. Therefore the Apostle saith He that hateth his brother is a manslayer 1. Ioh. 3.15 3. Bonus medicus non solum tolliâ— malum quod apparet sed etiam radicem removet infirmitatis A good Physitian doth not only take away the evill that is apparent but also removeth the very root of the disease Thomas Therefore our Saviour biddeth not only to take heed of murther but of anger also ex ira enim homicidium generatur for homicide or murther is ingendred by anger and rage Chrysostome 4. And where the effect is forbidden there also the cause and occasion thereof is restrained as God would not have us to hurt our brother so he would have all occasions thereof to bee cut off Vrsinus QUEST VII What things are to be taken heed of in anger COncerning anger and rage which is the inward killing five things are here to be taken heed of 1. Ne citò provocatur that it be not soone provoked as S. Iames saith Loe every man be swift to heare slow to speake and slow to wrath chap.
1.19 And there be two reasons why anger should not be soone provoked because rage is a sinne before God and so deserveth punishment and for that every man desireth libertie but he that is given to anger is not Dominus sui ipsius Master of himselfe 2. He must take heed ut 〈◊〉 in ira permaneat that he continue not long in anger Psal. 4. Be angrie and sinne not Ephes. 4. Let not the Sunne goe downe upon your wrath 3. Men must bee carefull ne procedat primò in corde that anger proceed not first in the heart for then it turneth to hatred and he that hateth his brother is a manslayer for Se interficit spoliando se charitate alium He killeth himselfe by spoyling himselfe of charitie and another also 4. Ne procedat in verbo It must not proceed in word for he which calleth his brother foole is in danger of hell fire Matth. 5. 5. Ne procedat in opere It must not proceed unto the deed for in every worke wee must consider two things Facere justitiam misericordiam To doe justice and shew mercie but he which is angrie can doe neither For the first the Apostle saith that the wrath of 〈◊〉 doth not accomplish the righteousnesse of God Iam. 1.20 It is reported of Plato that hee should say to his servant that had offended him Punirem te nisi essem iratus I would punish thee if I were not angrie And he that is angrie can shew no mercie as it is said of Simeon and Levi in their rage they killed a man Gen. 49. Thom. in opuscul QUEST VIII Of rayling and reviling NExt unto the inward rage and heat of the affections followeth the outward indignation expressed by words gesture and other signes and the third degree is when men fall to plaine railing backbiting slandering threatning as these three are thus expressed by our blessed Saviour Whosoever is angrie with his brother unadvisedly shall be culpable of judgement and whosoever saith unto his brother racha shall be worthie to be punished by a counsell and whosoever shall say thou foole shall be worthie to be punished with hell fire Matth. 5.22 1. Here our Saviour maketh three degrees of anger or rage the one in the sudden heat and boyling of the affection inwardly without cause the second in the shewing of this indignation outwardly by any disdainfull words as in calling one racha that is idle head light braine for so rik in the Hebrew to the which this Syrian word agreeth both in sound and sense signifieth light value Iun. Matth. 5.22 As also this indignation may bee expressed by other signes as by grinning frowning spitting and such like Simler Then the third degree followeth in open railing as calling one foole with other termes of reviling 2. As our Saviour maketh difference of the sins so also he sheweth divers degrees of punishment alluding unto the politike forme of judgement for first there was the session or judgement of three who judged of small causes then of 23. who determined more waightie matters then of 71. before whom the high Priest or a false Prophet and sometime a whole tribe was convented and judged Beza So he that is angrie shall be censured in the secret judgement of God he that sheweth his indignation by opprobrious words shall be held guiltie before all the assemblie of the heavenly Angels and Saints he that raileth and revileth shall bee judged worthie of hell fire that is of the greatest punishment Marlorat For they used foure kinds of punishments among the Jewes whereby they put malefactors to death strangling the sword stoning and fire of the which the last was the worst Beza 3. For he that raileth and revileth tres quasi uno ictu occidit killeth three as it were with one blow himselfe him that giveth credit and the third whom he slandereth and revileth Basting QUEST IX Whether beating and wounding though there be no killing be not forbidden here THe externall act followeth not only of killing but in offering any other violence with the hand in beating wounding striking and such like 1. Here commeth to be examined the opinion of R. Salomon that in this precept only murther is forbidden but other violent wrongs in maimes wounds shedding of bloud beatings and such like hee thinketh onely afterward to bee restrained in the Judicials 2. Against this opinion these reasons are enforced 1. The Judicials only concerned the Israelites and did not bind the Gentiles but even among them these kind of violent assaults were unlawfull therefore they are forbidden not by the Judicials only but by the Morall law Tostat. qu. 21. He also urgeth this reason The things which were forbidden by the Judicials of Moses only it was no sinne for the Israelites to doe before those Lawes were given them that is before they came to Mount Sinai but it was unlawful before for them one to smite another as for the same cause Moses reproved an Hebrew that did his brother wrong and smote him Exod. 2.13 therefore these wrongs were not only prohibited by the Judiciall law 3. Burgensis giveth this reason Quia facit contra charitatem Because he that smiteth or woundeth though he kill not doth against charity as he also doth which killeth though in an higher degree So also Lippoman 4. Tostatus further giveth this rule Omnia quae pertinent ad idem genus reducuntur ad idem prâ—ceptuum All that belongeth to the same kinde is to be referred to the same Commandement as all wounding beating smiting tendeth to the hurt of our brother in his body as killing likewise doth QUEST X. Why actuall murder is such an hainous sinne before God NOw followeth the greatest transgression among the rest which is the taking away of a mans life 1. For if hatred envy railing wounding and the like are counted murder before God in respect of the will and purpose much more murder it selfe which is the scope and end whereat all the former wrongs and injuries drive for if those things are displeasing unto God because they often bring forth murder the effect it selfe must needs bee more hainous Basting 2. Another reason which amplifieth the sinne of murder is because the Lord by this meanes seeth Imaginem suam violari that his image is violated which is given as a reason of this precept Gen. 9.6 Calvin 3. And againe it is an unnaturall sinne because man is as our owne flesh as the Prophet saith Isai. 58.7 Hide not thy selfe from thine owne flesh but no man ever hated his owne flesh as the Apostle saith Calvin Yea the murderer herein is crudelier Lupâ— more cruell than the Wolfe for as Aristotle writeth 4. Animalium Give unto a Wolfe the flesh of another Wolfe and he will not eat it yet one man preyeth upon another and devoureth another Thomas 4. Hominum societas violatur by this meanes the societie of man is violated which that it may be preserved the Lord forbiddeth all shedding of
bloud Galas 5. Polluitur foedatur terra yea the land it selfe is polluted and defiled with bloud Numb 35.36 Galas 6. Mans bodie is the temple of the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 6.16 If any then destroy the temple of God him will God destroy 1 Cor. 3.17 7. The murtherer also sinneth against Christ whose member his neighbour is whose life hee hath sought So reasoneth the Apostle but in a divers case that he which causeth the weake brother to perish for whom Christ died sinneth against Christ himselfe 1 Cor. 8.11 QUEST XI How diversly murder is committed THis kinde of externall and actuall murther is committed two wayes either by a man himselfe or by another 1. The first is done two wayes either by the cruell shedding of mans bloud which is the most grievous sinne of all or by neglecting the meanes and not preserving our neighbours life either by helpe or counsell when it is in our power as the rich man suffered Lazarus for want of reliefe to perish at his gate Luk. 16. So the Priest and Levite passed by the man that had beene wounded of the theeves and was left for halfe dead and had no compassion of him Luk. 10. So the Wise-man saith in the Proverbs chap. 24.11 Deliver them that are drawne to death and wilt thou not preserve them that are led to bee slaine Isidore saith Qui incurrit in nudum esurientem c. He that meeteth with a man readie to perish for hunger and cold if he doe not give him meat and raiment homicida tenebitur shall be counted a murtherer So Gloss. interlinear A man committeth murther manu vel mente vel subtrahendo auxilium aut consilium c. with his hand with his heart and when he withdraweth his helpe and counsell 2. A man killeth by another two wayes consensu by giving consent as Saul did when Stephen was put to death keeping their garments that stoned him Act. 7.58 And the people crucified Christ calling unto Pilate Crucifie him Mandato voluntate By willing and commanding ones death as David did contrive Vrias death and Iezabel Naboths Bastingius QUEST XII Of the divers kinds of murder THere are divers kinds of killing 1. There is a lawfull killing or taking away of the life by the Magistrate as either in putting malefactors to death or in just warre where much bloud is shed 2. There is another kinde altogether unlawfull and inexcusable which is called wilfull murther when any of hatred smiteth a man that he die or of purpose lie in wait for him Numb 35.20 So Ioab wilfully killed Abner and Amasa 3. There is a third kinde of involuntarie murther when a man lieth not in wait but God offereth him unto him Exod. 21.13 For though such things seeme to us to fall out by chance yet all things are ordered and disposed by Gods providence and with him nothing happeneth by chance of this kinde there are three sorts 1. When two doe of a sudden having no purpose before fight together and the one killeth the other as striving upon the way or falling out upon any other sudden and unthought of occasion this is called manslaughter as Abner killed Asahel that met him and pursued him in battell this kinde is not so hainous as wilfull murther yet it far exceedeth these other kinds that follow 2. Sometime one is killed by chance which is of two sorts either a chance which falleth out by meere oversight and negligence as if a Physitian through carelesnesse mistake the medicine and so kill his patient which might by his care have beene prevented or it falleth out by meere chance which could not be helped as when one heweth wood and the axe-head flieth off and killeth one that standeth by 3. But that kinde which deserveth most favour and may best be excused is when one is forced to kill another se defendendo by defending of himselfe which was the womans case that with a milstone pashed out cruell Abimelechs braines when he attempted to set fire upon the tower and to burne the woman and all the rest of the people there Iudg. 9. QUEST XIII Magistrates are not guiltie of murder in putting malefactors to death ALl kinde of killing is not then unlawfull whereof there are three sorts there is divina vindicta heroica ordinata divine revenge heroicall ordinarie 1. The divine is which is directly and immediatly commanded by God as Abraham at the Lords bidding would have sacrificed his sonne Abraham non solum non est culpatus crudâ—litatis crimine sed laudatus est pietatis nomine Abraham was not onely 〈◊〉 blamed for his crueltie but commended for his pietie therein So Ioshua had commandement from the Lord to destroy the Canaanites 2. The heroicall kinde of killing is when any being inflamed with the zeale of Gods glorie and extraordinarily stirred by his spirit doe take revenge of the Lords enemies as Sampson upon the Philistims in his death Phineas in zeale killed the adulterer and adulteresse and Samuel hewed Agag the King of Amalek in peeces Marbach 3. The ordinarie killing is by the Magistrate who by direction of the word of God and according to wholesome lawes grounded upon the same doth give sentence of death against malefactors or wageth just battell upon these occasions the Magistrate sinneth not in shedding of bloud The reasons are these 1. Hierome saith Homicidas punire non est sanguinis effusio sed legis ministerium To punish murtherers and other malefactors it is no effusion of bloud but the execution of the law in Ieremiam c. 22. So Gloss. interlinear Index non occidit reum sed lex quae jubet The Judge killeth not the guiltie partie but the law which commandeth 2. Thomas saith Id quod licitum est Deo licitum est ministro ipsius per mandatum ejus That which is lawfull unto God the author of the law is lawfull unto Gods Minister by his Commandement But the Magistrate is Gods Minister Rom. 13.4 2. Places of Doctrine upon the sixth Commandement 1. Doct. Of the generall contents of this Commandement THou shalt not kill This Commandement consisteth 1. Partly in prohibiting all kinde of hurt or wrong to our neighbour either in leaving or forsaking him or in doing him hurt either outwardly by murder rayling reviling or by any injurie whatsoever or inwardly by anger hatred desire of revenge 2. Partly in commanding the preservation of our neighbours life either in not hurting whether provoked or not provoked or in helping either by the depulsion of wrongs and injuries offred or by the collation of benefits 2. Doct. The particular vertues here commanded THe vertues then prescribed in this Commandement are of two sorts either such as doe not hurt or such as are beside helping also Of the first kinde are 1. A particular justice and equitie in all our acts and doings not to hurt or molest any in word or deed by violence fraud or negligence or by any other meanes such an one
Sodomitrie and abusing of the male or with the same sex but in degrees forbidden such is incest with those that are neerely joyned in affinitie and consanguinitie and though none of these fall out yet if by violence any be forced to uncleannesse as in the ravishing and deflowring of wives or Virgins all these are more odious than adulterie and therefore they are likewise forbidden 2. Vrsinus thus reasoneth The end and scope of this precept is to be considered which is to preserve chastitie and to maintaine matrimonie whatsoever then is contrarie hereunto is forbidden and therefore all acts of uncleannesse as well adulterie as others which are against chastitie and matrimoniall sanctitie are here restrained 3. Calvin addeth further Lex est juste vivendi perfecta regala The law is a perfect rule of righteous living therefore not one kinde of uncleannesse but all whatsoever are in this precept restrained which are against righteous and upright living as all unnaturall uncleannesse incest fornication all pollutions wherewith the bodie is defiled QUEST IV. Of the sinnes of unnaturall lust THe unnaturall sinnes of uncleannesse are of three sorts 1. Those which are committed with another kinde as with brute beasts Levit. 18.23 Thou shalt not lie with any beast to be defiled therewith which enormous and monstrous sinne doth violate the law of nature and bringeth a great infamie upon mankinde in that any should bee found among them of such beastly and vile inclination Tostat. qu. 23. And herein is discovered the wickednesse and corruption of mans nature which without Gods grace is prone even unto the most vile monstrous and ugly sinnes 2. Another kinde of unnaturall lust is that which is committed with that sex which is not for that naturall use which was the sinne of the Heathen When man with man wrought filthinesse Rom. 1.27 Such were the Sodomites which with one consent came from all quarters of the Citie and beset Lots house and would have offred villanie unto the two young men which were indeed two Angels whom Lot had received into his house Genes 19. These whom the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liers with men with others there named are without their great repentance excluded the Kingdome of heaven and inheritance of God 1 Cor. 6.9 3. The Apostle in the same place nameth also the third unnaturall sinne of lust of those whom the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effeminate wanton and lascivious persons molles as the Latine Interpreter translateth who doe commit uncleannesse with the same kinde with the same sex and with the same person that is with themselves in the voluntarie emission of their nature such as was in part the sinne of Er and Onan the sonnes of Iudah whom the Lord destroyed for their wickednesse Gen. 38. these are so called molles tender delicate effeminate Quia nullam tristitiam tolerare possunt because they can endure no griefe in resisting of carnall concupiscence Tostat. quast 22. QUEST V. Why some kinde of uncleannesse is not forbidden by humane lawes BUt here the question will bee demanded what the reason is seeing this kinde of filthinesse is odious before God and man and by the Word of God condemned yet the lawes of men make no provision against it Hereof two reasons may be rendred 1. Because this kinde is committed secretly so that it cannot bee proved by witnesse and so by due proofe be censured such sinnes the lawes of men specially provide for as may be by witnesse or other evidence manifested now this uncleannesse can hardly be brought to light but by the parties themselves who are not so impudent as to act any such thing in open view as the Priest of Priapus standing aloft upon the staires used to shew his privie parts unto the people to provoke their beastly lust So also other secret sinnes as the adulterie and murther of the heart mens lawes cannot meet with unlesse they be such as are against the state of the Prince and Commonwealth for then even such thoughts and purposes though they take no effect yet if they can be discovered as by the confession of the parties or by their fellow conspirators are worthily punished Tostat. quaest 22. 2. Another reason is because Solos actus justitiae mandat humana lex humane lawes onely command the acts of justice and forbid all such acts whereby one hurteth another and so humane societie is hindred hereof it is that intemperance prodigalitie pride cowardlinesse and such like are not censured by humane lawes because they are no acts of injustice tending to the hurt of others So other acts of uncleannesse as of adulterie incest rape are by law restrained because the hurt and disgrace of others is thereby procured but this mollicies licet sit actus intemperantia non est tamen actus injustitia c. This effeminate pollution of the body by it selfe though it be an act of intemperancy yet it is no act of injustice because none other is hurt thereby which thing humane lawes especially provide for Tostâ— quâ—st 22. QUEST VI. Of the greatnesse of the sinne of adulterie THou shalt not commit adulterie Here by the very letter of the law that grievous and hainous sinne of adulterie is forbidden the greatnesse of which sinne is thus amplified and set forth 1. Ambrose thus describeth the sinne of adulterie God made two in the beginning and commanded that they two should be as one flesh Quod unum separas corpus c. naturae adulterium est In that thou doest separate one bodie c. thou doest adulterate nature c. First therefore by adulterie the holy institution of God is violated which maketh man and wife but one flesh Ambros. Hexemer lib. 5. cap. 7. 2. Chrysostome multiplieth many reasons together Qui capta uxore post hoc carnis remedium alieâ—â— injuriatur nullam veniam consequitur hoc jam lascivia est c. He that having taken a wife wrongeth another woman shall hardly finde pardon for this is a sinne of wantonnesse 3. Si suam repudiare alii vacare non licet c. If it be unlawfull for a man to put away his wife and use another which is a kinde of adulterie how much more is he to be blamed qui suae aliam addit which joyneth another to his wife 4. Againe the greatnesse of the sinne of adulterie appeareth by comparing it with other great sinnes it is so hainous before God Vt si â—xor ab Idolatra viro ipso nolâ—nte discedat puâ—â—atur sin ab adultero minimè That if the wife depart from an husband that is an Idolater against his will shee is punished if from an adulterâ—â— she is not the first the Apostle sheweth that it is unlawfull for a woman to depart from an unbeleeving husband being willing to dwell with her 1 Cor. 7.13 but for adulterie the wife may be dismissed Matt. 5.32 5. Further by comparing of the effects together this sinne appeareth what it is
was the same both under the law of Moses and the law of Christ but that much was permitted and tolerated unto the Jewes onely for the hardnesse of their heart as our blessed Saviour sheweth Matth. 19. 2. Some doe urge the lawes of men and the greater punishments which have beene laid upon women for adulterie rather than upon men and that therefore the sinne of the woman should bee the greater But this sheweth not the greatnesse of the sinne before God but the greater inconvenience that is brought upon the civill and politike state which the lawes of men seeke chiefly to preserve by the adulterie of the woman rather than of the man 3. Some thinke that it is a greater sinne in the man because of his authoritie quia vir caput mulieris because the man is head of the woman and the Apostle biddeth that women if they would learne any thing should aske their husbands at home 1 Cor. 14.35 Est ergo vir doctor mulieris The man then is the womans teacher then as the Priest sinneth more than a lay man because he is his teacher so the man doth more grievously offend than the woman Thomas in opuscul But this proveth not that the sinne of the man simply is greater than the sinne of the woman but in a certaine respect 4. Wherefore the best answer is that the sinne of adulterie in some respects is equall in both sexes and in some other greater both in the one and the other 1. In regard of the law of Matrimonie whereby they have given their faith each to the other the sinne seemeth to be equall for the man hath no more power over himselfe in this behalfe than the woman as S. Paul teacheth 1 Cor. 7.4 and therefore by Moses law as well the adulterer as the adulteresse was to be put to death 2. But in respect of the qualitie and condition of the person because the woman is the weaker vessell and the man is the head of the woman and of the more strength this sinne is greater in the man because hee therein give than evill example to the weaker partie and teacheth her an evill lesson Ecclesiasticus 9.1 3. But the inconveniences considered that follow hereupon as the ignominie and shame of houses the confusion of inheritances and the obtruding of false heires by the adulterie and false play of women their sinne is thought to exceâ—d Simler Which might be the reason also why among the Jewes the men were permitted to have divers wives but not the women to have divers husbands QUEST IX Whether adulterie be now necessarily to be punished by death SOmewhat here would bee inserted concerning the punishment of adulterie by the sentence of death wherein there are these three opinions 1. Some thinke that adulterie ought to be punished capitally according to the judiciall law of Moses and not otherwise Piscaetor giveth divers reasons hereof but two especially I will single out 1. Delicta temporibus naturam suam non mutant Sinnes doe not change their nature in time 2. Deus naturam suam non mutat Neither doth God change his nature so that he hateth sinne no lesse now than in times past neither will he have it lesse punished Praefat. in Exod. Contra. 1. The nature of sinne is the same though the punishment bee altered adulterie is as grievous before God now as it was under the law but the circumstances as of place and person so also of time may give occasion of aggravating or alleviating the punishment Hee that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath was stoned to death Numb 30. because it was necessarie that the law at the beginning being then newly given should bee established by severitie But yet our Saviour excuseth his Apostles for gathering and rubbing eares of corne upon the Sabbath Matth. 12. Saint Peter pronounced the sentence of death upon Aâ—amas and Sapphira for deteining part of that which they had given to the Church for the terror and example of others yet now such dissimulation is not held to be worthie of death 2. Neither is God changed by the changing or mitigating the rigour of the law but he removing the same applieth his law according to the different respect of 〈◊〉 and persons for as well hee might bee said to be changed in the changing of other 〈◊〉 as of the ceremoniall and judicials thereto annexed 4. If all judicials annexed to the Morall law are now to be necessarily retained then the violating of the rest of the Lords day as then of the Sabbath which was in that respect morall should be punished with death and blaspheming and prophaning of the name of God by swearing as Levit. 24.16 which would seeme to be too rigorous 5. And seeing the times of the Gospell are the times of mercie and those under the Law were the times of rigour and severitie to abate somewhat of the rigorous punishments of the Law not leaving sinne unpunished may seeme not unlawfull 2. Another opinion is that adulterie is not at all now to be punished by death for our Saviour would not condemne the woman taken in adulterie Ioh. 8. Contra. 1. Upon that example of Christ it cannot be gathered that it is unlawfull to censure adultery by death for it would follow as well that adultery is not to be punished at all because Christ inflicteth no punishment at all upon her onely this may be inferred that by Christs silence and forbearance it appeareth that the punishment of adultery by death is not necessary for if his will had beene that the rigour of that law should stand in force our Saviour needed not to have feared their trap lest they should have condemned him of rigour and severitie if he had judged her worthie of death and if he had repealed that law they would have accused him as contrarie to Moses 3. This then may bee collected by Christs silence and connivence that it is not necessarie that adulterie should alwayes and in all places be sentenced unto death but rather that it is left indifferent that neither those Churches are to be condemned of too great severitie which follow the president of Moses judicials herein nor yet they are to be accused of too much lenitie which judge adulterie otherwise than by death as they see it best to fit their estate so that the severitie of the punishment be answerable to the quality of the sinne By Moses law they which committed adulterie were to die the death that is if it were duplex adulterium that both the adulterer and adulteresse were married or if the woman were anothers wife Levit. 20.10 otherwise it was not death for a married man beside his wife to have a Concubine or to one wife to take another so shee were not anothers wife What will they thinke now of such single adulterie that would have it revenged by death they have no president in Moses law for the punishing of this kinde of adulterie by death then it is evident that all adulterie
made unlesse they can give probable and reasonable cause of the change of their minde but they are not to bee forced by any such promise of mariage to accomplish the same 2. The other kinde of espousals is de praesenti pronounced of the time present as if one say Ego te mihi despondeo uxorem I take thee to my wife this contract is actuall and effectuall and cannot bee dissolved being lawfully made for that which God hath coupled together man cannot put asunder Matth. 19.7 and they which are thus contracted are man and wife before God as Iacob calleth Rachel being onely espoused his wife Give me my wife Genes 29.21 and the Angell calleth Mary espoused to Ioseph his wife Matth. 1.20 Hereof it was that by Moses law hee which defloured a maid espoused unto another was to bee stoned to death Deut. 22.23 3. After these espousals there came betweene them and the celebration of the mariage some convenient space of time 1. For publike honestie sake that they should not presently come together as bruit beasts in the heat of their fleshly desire 2. That by this meanes their mindes might bee first knit together before their bodies their desire of each to other by this meanes being kindled and increased 2. That this pause being made if in the meane time there should fall out any just cause of let it might appeare Bucanus QUEST XV. Of mariage consummate and the rites and orders therein to be observed MAriage is consummate by two solemne and publike actions one is religious and Ecclesiasticall the other is Civill 1. The parties espoused are first brought into the face of the congregation both to testifie their unfained consent each to other and that they may publikely bee instructed by the Minister of the duties of mariage and be commended unto God by the prayers of the congregation which godly use of the publike celebration of mariage before the congregation howsoever some schismatickes foolishly and wilfully spurne against it yet is grounded partly upon the example of God himselfe who brought man and woman together and gave them a solemne blessing saying Increase and multiplie partly upon that rule of the Apostle 1. Corinth 14.40 that all things in the Church should be done honestly and by order for by this meanes secret and 〈◊〉 mariages are prevented and the parties freed from all suspition who without this publike solemnitie might bee thought so live incontinently together and seeing all things are consecrate by the word of God and prayer 1. Tim 4.5 it is requisite that such a weightie businesse as this should bee sanctified with prayer and invocation of the name of God 2. The other publike action is Civill in the nuptiall feast or festivitie for it hath beene a commendable custome in all ages and in all nations almost to solemnize mariage with the cheerefull meeting of friendâ—â— as Laban made a feast in the mariage of his daughters Genes 29.22 our blessed Saviour was present at a mariage feast at Cana in Galile Ioh. 2. But the mariage feast ought to bee kept with this cavent that there bee no excesse riot or disorder with other abuses that often fall out in such meetings As in that great feast which the great King of Persia made unto his Nobles such good order was kept that none was compelled to drinke more than hee would himselfe Esther 1.8 This moderate and sober kinde of feasting may safely bee retained among Christians according to S. Pauls rule Philip. 4.8 9. Whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just c. those things doe and the God of peace shall bee with you Ex Bucano QUEST XVI What conditions are required in lawfull mariage BUt in lawfull mariage divers conditions are required and namely these 1. That Matrimony bee contracted between such parties as are apt for mariage The contracts then and espousals made betweene children are void 2. That there bee a voluntarie consent of both parties not forced or urged thereunto 3. The consent also of the parents or of those which are in the place and stead of parents must not bee wanting 4. There must bee no error in the persons as when they are espoused as virgins which prove afterward to bee otherwise or such like errors and mistakings 5. That honest conditionâ— bee propounded in such contracts with decencie and comelines 6. That Matrimonie bee contracted onely betweene two parties for though the Fathers were permitted to have many wives yet we must live not according to examples but by a certaine law and rule 7. Mariage must bee contracted in the Lord that is onely betweene the faithfull and beleevers and such as consent together in the true faith and religion 8. That such persons contract not together as are within the degrees prohibited either of affinitie and consanguinitie which are expressed Levit. 18. which prohibition of degrees is grounded upon the law of nature and therefore is morall and perpetuall for God did cast out the Canaanites because they were defiled herein Levit. 18.24 Who were not bound to the ceremoniall but to the morall lawes and the end of this prohibition of certaine degrees was for reverence of the neerenesse of kindred and blood as this reason is rendred None shall come neere to any of the kindred of his flesh to uncover their shame Levit. 18.6 and therefore this law is universall and perpetuall Vrsin Concerning the particular limitation of these degrees and right computation of them see elsewhere this matter handled at large Synops contr 15. of Matrimonie qu. 3. QUEST XVII Of the ends of the institution of matrimonie NOw the ends wherefore Matrimonie was ordained are these 1. In respect of the parties themselves there are three ends 1. That they should be a mutuall helpe one unto another both in divine and humane duties as the Lord when hee made woman said I will make an helpe meet for him Gen. 2.18 which helpe is partly in humane affaires as in domesticall duties in governing and ordering the familie in the bringing up and education of children and in personall duties one in helping and releeving another in sicknesse and in health as also in divine one in comforting another in praying one for another and such like 2. Mariage is ordained to bee a remedie against incontinencie and vagrant lust 1. Cor. 7.2 3. For procreation of children which should continue their parents name and succeed in his inheritance as the Lord said unto them Gen. 1.28 Increase and multiplie 2. In respect of the Church and Common-wealth Matrimonie was appointed as a meane to increase them both with profitable members and instruments and therefore parents are charged to bring up their children in the instruction and information of the Lord Ephes. 6.4 that they may bee fit to bee employed in the Church and Common-wealth 3. In respect of God Matrimonie was instituted principally for the setting forth of his glorie that the married parties should together better learne
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
they are distinctly to be prohibited Lyranus also saith that there is Aliaratio boni utilis alia delectabilis One reason of coveting a profitable good another of a delectable good the coveting of the wife belongeth to one and the coveting of the substance to the other Answ. 1. All this onely proveth a difference and distinction in the severall kindes of concupiscence not a distinction of the severall precepts 2. And thus much may bee inferred that because they are distinct concupiscences therefore they are distinctly to be expressed and so they are but it followeth not that they are to bee distinguished in two precepts 3. And yet these concupiscences are not so distinguished but that they may concurre at one and the same time in the inward desire and motion as one may have a carnall desire to his neighbours wife and have a covetous eye also unto her substance Wherefore this last precept which forbiddeth all manner of coveting is not to bee divided into two precepts but is one whole and entire Commandement consisting of divers particulars The reasons are these 1. Origen thus reasoneth Quod si ita putetur non complebitur decem numerus praeceptorum c. If the two first precepts should be made all one there would not bee ten Commandements ubi jam erit decalogi veritas where then is the truth of the decalogue Homil. 8. in Exod. The reason is this that seeing there must bee ten precepts and there are foure in the first table there can bee but six in the second but if the last be divided into two there will bee more than six in the second and so more than ten in all but if wee make but three in the first there will be but nine in all for Origen taketh this as granted that it is all one precept that maketh mention of coveting 2. Another reason is because that which is here put in the first place Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife is put in the second place Deut. 5.21 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife neither shalt thou desire thy neighbours house which inversion of the order sheweth that they are all one precept for otherwise Moses should have confounded the ninth and tenth precept together Vrsin So also Cajetane Varia â—â—â—ctura uxoris domus ex industria facta à Mose c. This mixture of the wife and house Moses maketh of purpose in these two places because they belong to one precept This reason also is urged by Iunius upon this place 3. This precept Moses periodis non distinxit sed uno versiculo comprehendit did not distinguish by periods as the other precepts but comprehendeth it in one verse which sheweth it to be one precept not two Vrsin 4. Another argument is taken from the reason of this Commandement which is added Nor any thing which is his we are forbidden therefore to covet the neighbours wife house or oxe or asse Quia alterius sunt because they belong to another Cajetan Oleaster There being then one common reason serving the whole it sheweth that it is one Commandement not divers 5. Omnes hae species sub uno genere comprehenduntur All these severall kindes of coveting are comprehended under one generall head Thou shalt not covet therefore they are under one precept Galas 6. Pari ratione in sex vel septem praecepta deduci posse videatur c. With as good reason may it be divided into six or seven precepts as into two because so many particular branches of coveting are rehearsed Simler 7. But one of the best reasons that the precept of not coveting is one and not two is taken from that place of Saint Paul Cum de concupiscentia tanquam de uno pracepto dicit When he speaketh of concupiscence as of one precept Rom. 7.7 I had not knowne lust except the Law had said Thou shalt not lust Vrsin Basting QUEST II. What manner of concupiscence is here forbidden and how this precept differeth from the former COncerning the difference betweene this precept and the other Thou shalt not commit adultery thou shalt not steale there are divers opinions 1. Augustine seemeth sometime to bee of opinion that in those Commandements Ipsum opus notatum videtur in extremo autem ipsa concupiscentia The worke only seemeth to be noted but in the last the concupiscence only quaest 71. in Exod. But this is against our blessed Saviours exposition Matth. 5.28 that a man may commit adultery in his heart if hee hath but looked upon a woman to lust after her therefore in the other Commandements not the externall act only is forbidden but the inward purpose also and desire 2. Thomas Aquin thus distinguisheth concupiscence that it may be taken one way as it is actus voluntaetis an act of the will another ut est actus sensualitatis a sensuall or carnall act but here it is onely forbidden in the first sense as it is Consensus voluntatis in opus vel delectationem As it is a consent of the will either to the worke it selfe or in taking delight But when the will hath once assented sinne is brought forth and so it is a breach of the other Commandements as our blessed Saviour sheweth that if a man have but lusted after a woman with a will and desire unto her in his heart he hath committed adultery 3. Some of the Hebrewes thinke that no concupiscence resting inwardly though it have the consent of the will is here forbidden but such as commeth into some externall act beside the perfect act of any sinne as when one soliciteth another mans wife by gifts speeches gesture kissing and dallying though adultery be not committed But the very consent and purpose of the heart though there follow no outward act is sinne as shall afterward be more fully declared as Levit. 19.17 the very hatred of the heart is prohibited though no mischiefe outwardly be committed 4. Some thinke that there is no more forbidden in this Commandement than before but that the Lord thought good to rehearse and declare in plaine words his will for restraining of the inward concupiscence for he knew Aerius stimulandos urgendos homines ne sub umbra obscurioris doctrina latebraâ— quaererent Lest men should seeke some evasion in the obscurity of doctrine that they were specially to be pricked forward and urged Calvin But it is not like that in so compendious an abridgement of the Law that the same things should be twice repeated and Calvin himselfe onely propoundeth this reason hee doth not much insist upon it 5. Therefore that we may apprehend the true difference betweene this precept and the other wee must distinguish betweene these three Pravaâ— cogitationes assensum simplicem certam deliberationem Evill thoughts a simple assent and a setled and certaine deliberation The first evill thoughts if as soone as they rise a man reject them he seemeth not to be guilty though
which is actâ—â— imperatus the act commanded therefore the externall worke being by this coherence and connexion an act of the internall powers hath some good or evill in it though not so properly as the internall Sic fere Tostat. quast 29. QUEST VI. The law of Moses did not onely restraine the hand but the minde BEside this opinion of the Hebrewes some other doe hold that the law of Moses did onely restraine the hand and not the minde and to this purpose they urge that place Matth. 5.27 where our Saviour saith It was said unto you of old Thou shalt not commit adulterie c. But I say c. So that of old it seemeth the law onely restrained the outward act but Christ doth forbid more even the inward desire c. Contra. 1. Our blessed Saviour secundùm corum opinionem loquebatur speaketh according to their opinion because they thought they were onely obliged and tied to the outward act and therefore he doth deliver the law from their corrupt interpretations he giveth not a new exposition and this appeareth vers 43. Yee have heard that it hath beene said Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemie but in all the old Testament there is no such precept given by God or libertie for any to hate their enemie our Saviour then meaneth not such sayings as were found in the law but such expositions as they made among themselves Now that even the law of Moses did binde not onely the hand and externall act but the inward will and desire it thus is proved 1. None are said to repent but of that which is evill but they under the law were to repent and to shew themselves contrite even for the internall acts of their minde as Psal. 4.4 Tremble and sinne not examine your heart upon your bed c. Ergo c. 2. It is directly forbidden Levit. 19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart which was an internall act and many other such like sinnes of the heart are reproved by the Prophets 3. The law doth not justifie that which is naturally unjust but forbiddeth it now to covet another mans wife is naturally unjust Ergo. For the proposition or first part of the argument if the theft of the Israelites the killing of Isaack intended by Abraham the fornication of Ose chap. 1. be objected these were singulares casus which the the lawgiver commanding thereby declared quod non includerentur sub lege communi that they were not included under the generall law but if this whole law Thou shalt not covet had given a generall libertie for the Jewes to covet anothers wife Non jam declaretur lex sed destrucretur The law should not by this meanes be declared but destroyed For the assumption that it is against the law of nature to covet another mans wife it is evident 1. Because he faileth in the end coveting her onely of lust not for procreation 2. Matrimonie est de jure naturali is grounded even upon the law of nature if then to breake and violate matrimonie bee against the law of nature then to will and purpose so to doe is against nature also yea the will and purpose is rather sinne than the act it selfe for it may fall out that the externall act is sometime without sinne as when a man ignorantly lieth with another woman taking her to bee his wife as Iakob tooke Leah for Rachel but the will and desire is never without sinne Tostat. Burgens addit 7. in cap. 20. would thus excuse this assertion that Moses law prohibebat manum 〈◊〉 anâ—â—â—um did inhibit the hand not the minde not that their meaning is that in no part of Moses law there is any prohibition to be found of the minde for hatred is directly forbidden Levit. 19.17 but that when any externall act is forbidden Non intelligitur ex vi illius praecepti prohiberi actus interior The internall act is not understood to bee forbidden by vertue of that precept as in this precept Thou shalt not kill he is not judged to be guiltie which purposeth to kill and yet killeth not Contra. 1. But our Saviour saith that even this precept is transgressed by the anger and hatred of the heart Matth. 5.22 therefore the law intendeth even by the externall act to forbid the internall also QUEST VII Whether any morall and naturall duties were to be restrained by positive law BUt it will further be objected that the old law was not to give precepts of morall duties 1. The morall precepts are grounded upon the law of nature and such precepts are knowne unto all but the divine law prescribeth such things as otherwise are not neither can bee knowne 2. The keeping of the morall law giveth life Galath 3.12 but the old law was the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3.7 therefore the old law was not to containe morall precepts Contra. 1. The law of God was not onely to give rules of such things as men know by the law of nature but to keepe and preserve them also from errour in those things which they know And therefore because men doe erre and swarve in such things as they know their will and affection not giving way to reason it was fit that a law should be given as well to rectifie their affection as to direct their understanding 2. Beside although these morall duties are grounded upon the law of nature yet seeing the naturall instinct is obscured by mans corruption that dimme light of nature had need of a clearer light by the law to helpe it If man had continued in the perfection of his creation hee should not have needed any other law but seeing mans naturall knowledge is much decaied it was to be revived and renewed by the divine law 3. The rules of direction of mens actions are of foure sorts 1. Some are so well knowne by nature as none can doubt thereof as these that evill is to be shunned and good to be desired that no unjust thing is to bee done of such knowne principles it is not necessarie that any law should bee given 2. Some things may so be searched out by the law of nature as yet that many may erre therein such 〈◊〉 the particular precepts of not committing fornication not coveting anotherâ— wife therefore because many may erre in these duties it was requisite they should bee determined by the law of God 3. Some things are so derived from the law of nature as yet they are onely searched out by those which are wise such are the positive and judiciall lawes of men that wisely can applie the principles of the law of nature to particular circumstances of this kinde are Moses Judicials 4. Some things cannot at all be concluded by naturall reason but altogether depend upon the will of the institutor and law-maker of this kinde were Moses Ceremonials So then for a full answer to the first objection wee say that if morall duties were so generally and perfitly
certaine place first to the Tabernacle then to the Temple of Salomon but now the worship of God is not tied to any certaine place as at Jerusalem where the Temple was Ioh. 4.21 3. Other Sacraments are instituted in place of the old as Baptisme and the Eucharist therefore the old are abrogated 4. The ceremonies did bind the observers to the keeping of the whole law and the rites thereof he which was circumcised was bound to keepe the whole law Galath 5.3 but we are not bound now to the whole law from which bondage Christ hath freed us Ergo. 5. The ceremonies were a wall of partition and distinction betweene the Jewes and Gentiles but now that distinction is taken away all being one in Christ therefore that wall whereby they were parted and distinguished is removed also Simler 2. As touching the politike and judiciall lawes of Moses neither doe they absolutely â—ind now 1. Many of these lawes were peculiar to the policie of that Common-wealth as the lawes concerning their inheritances and possessions which were not to passe from tribe to tribe and they shewed the fashions and manners of that countrie as in building their houses with flat roofes as Deut. 22.8 Of these positive constitutions there is now no use among other nations 2. The condition of all people is not alike some are more stubborne and obstinate some more civill and tractable and therefore some have need of more strict and severe lawes than others one kinde of politicke law then cannot serve for all nations 3. The Gospell which is perpetuall prescribeth not a certaine forme of government to all nations neither overthroweth their severall policies but in generall commandeth obedience to all higher powers Rom. 13.1 Ergo much lesse the law which was to be changed Simler But the judiciall law is not abrogated Quoad substantiam finem universalem â—quitatem In respect of the substance end and universall equitie which is in punishing of vice and maintaining of peace Bucanus See more hereof quest 4. general cap. 1. 3. The Morall law is not now in force quoad justificationem in respect of justification Rom. 3.28 A man is justified by faith without the works of the law but it bindeth quoad obedientiam In respect of obedience we are bound to keepe all the precepts of the law but yet quoad terrorem modum obedientiae in respect of the terror of the law and manner of obedience which was to be obedient and subject unto it for feare of punishment wee are freed now from it and therefore the Apostle saith The law is not given to a righteous man 1 Tim. 1.9 because they of love rather than feare do yeeld their obedience and so are a law unto themselves Simler But this is a privilege onely of the regenerate As for carnall and unregenerate men they are still under the curse and terror of the law according to that saying Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them Buâ—â—â— 2. Places of Doctrine 1. Doct. Of the particular contents of this precept THou shalt not covet First the things commanded here are these 1. Originall justice which is an inclination and desire of the minde to performe all duties unto our neighbour Vrsin 2. Diligent care and circumspection even to take heed of the smallest sinnes and to watch over the very thoughts Prov. 3.23 Keepe thy heart with all diligence for thereout commeth life Basting Secondly contrarie unto this precept 1. Is originall corruption which is the generall corruption and depravation of our nature and that evill habit wherein wee are conceived and borne as David saith Behold I was borne in iniquitie and in sinne hath my mother conceived me Psal. 51.5 2. All evill inclinations of the heart whereby it is sollicited to doe any thing against the law of God this evill concupiscent is of two sorts it either hath principium internum the beginning within as is fleshly and carnall desire or externum without by some externall object which are the concupiscence of the eye and pride of life as the Apostle calleth them 1 Ioh. 16. 3. And not onely these kinds of concupiscence but all other phantasies and cogitations of the minde which are contrarie to the law of God are here restrained Basting 2. Doct. Of the severall properties of possessions and goods and the distinction of callings FUrther in that the Lord forbiddeth to covet our neighbours house servant c. wee see the Lord establisheth and confirmeth hereby both the severall rights in possessions lands and other substance which right and propertie the Lord will not have violated so much as in the concupiscence and inward desire As also here it is evident that the difference of callings and distinction of degrees as betweene master and servant standeth with the will of God as our blessed Saviour and his Apostles also every where teach Simler 3. Doct. The difference betweene divine and humane lawes HErein also is set forth an apparent difference betweene the law of God and the lawes of men Lex humana judicat facta dicta divina judicat etiam cogitata Mans law onely judgeth doings and sayings but Gods law judgeth the very thoughts and the reason hereof is because man judgeth onely according to the outward appearance and evidence but the Lord seeth the heart Thomas And the perfection of Divinitie is hereby declared beyond Philosophie which condemneth not the inward lusts and desires of the minde neither holdeth a man for the same whether they bee good or evill to be worthie praise or dispraise But the law of God striketh at the very root of evill actions which is the inward concupiscence and corruption of the heart 4. Doct. Of the concupiscence of the soule and of the flesh IT shall not bee amisse here to insert Chrysostomes distinction of concupiscence As wee have two natures one of the soule the other of the flesh so wee have two wils one of the soule the other of the flesh habemus duas itas duas concupiscentias c. we have also two kinds of anger and two kinds of concupiscence one of the soule the other of the flesh the nature of the flesh cannot bee separated from all these Necesse habet irasci concupiscere c. It cannot chuse but to be angrie to covet because it is sold under sinne but the soule being created according to the justice of God potest non irasci c. cannot bee angrie nor covet therefore when wee are angrie and covet if wee displease ourselves and represse these passions it is manifest that our flesh onely is angrie and coveteth and not the soule Such kinde of passions then here are forbidden wherein the soule consenteth with the flesh To this purpose Chrysost. hom 12. in Matth. 3. Places of controversie 1. Conf. Against the Pelagians that denie concupiscence to be sinne FIrst we are here to deale against the Pelagians
which is intended for the good of the Citie yet some may be dispensed withall and exempted from watching who may more necessarily bee employed for the common good for here although the letter of the law bee not precisely kept yet the intention of the Law-maker is observed which is to seeke and procure the common good So likewise 1. Universally the Lord himselfe neither will nor can dispense against his law as to make it lawfull to have other gods to take Gods name in vaine and such like for this were for God to denie himselfe to be just which were to deny himselfe but the Apostle saith God is faithfull and cannot denie himselfe 2 Tim 2.13 but to make it lawfull in generall to violate the precepts of the first and second Table were to denie his owne justice and so consequently to denie himselfe for God is most just yea justice it selfe and the law is a perfect rule of justice 2. Yet in the particular determinations of the law the Lord doth dispense as with Abrahams sacrificing of his sonne the Israelites robbing of the Egyptians the fornication of Ose the Prophet for the will of God which is most just and the right which he hath in the lives bodies and goods of men maketh these things lawfull being done by the Commandement of God which otherwise should bee unlawfull for as a man may use his Oxe or his Asse at his pleasure because they are ordained to his use so the Lord may doe with men take away their lives at his pleasure and that by a double right both because man by his sinne hath deserved to die and God as Creator may use the creature as it may best serve to his glorie And as a man may use his owne goods and that which is lent unto a man precariâ— freely and frankly during the pleasure of the lender he may when he will require againe so the earth being the Lords and the fulnesse thereof which he as it were lendeth unto man so long as it pleaseth him the Lord may justly at his pleasure transferre things from one to another So likewise in the third case of fornication like as matrimony maketh carnall copulation lawfull so the Lord may tale vinculum inducere by his commandement bring in and supplie the like bond as matrimonie is as when he commanded the Prophet to take him a wife of fornications Hose 1.3 the commandement of God made that lawfull which otherwise was unlawfull 3. But as God can make that which seemeth unjust to be lawfull and just so yet can he not make a just and good act to be evill and wicked as that he which worshippeth God aright doth evill or such like and the reason is because God by this meanes should bee contrarie to himselfe in commanding one so to worship him and yet to count him so worshipping him to doe evill Againe Impossibile est Deum facere quae non potest velle It is impossible for God to doe that hee cannot will now the Lord willeth none evill to be done therefore hee cannot make that which is good to be evill because he cannot denie himselfe who is onely good 4. Further a difference is to be made betweene the precepts of the first and secood Table God doth dispense with the precepts of the second which are referred to the good of our neighbour when he seeth it more to make for his owne glorie which is the chiefe end and scope of the duties of the first and second Table as when God commandeth to dishonour parents rather than to dishonour him and biddeth any kill and so in the rest but with the precepts of the first Table God dispenseth not because they are immediately referred to Gods glory for that were to consent to the dishonouring of himselfe And thus much for the answer to the first part of the argument Secondly it followeth not if God can dispense that therefore the Prelates of the Church may 1. Because the dispensation against a law must bee by as great authoritie as the law was first made by but the morall law grounded upon the law of nature was founded by the Author and Creator of nature and therefore by him onely and not by any else may it be dispensed with 2. As in naturall effects ordinarily there must goe before a naturall cause as a thing cannot be made hot unlesse fire or some other efficient cause of heat be put unto it so that the Pope himselfe cannot command a thing to bee hot but by such efficient cause of heat yet the Lord without any such mediate or ordinarie cause can make a thing hot by his infinite power supplying that cause himselfe so likewise in spirituall actions the Lord may supplie that which maketh the thing lawfull which man cannot doe unlesse some externall cause or circumstance doe concurre which maketh the act lawfull As to kill is an unlawfull act in it selfe neither can the Pope or any other make it lawfull to kill unlesse there be some cause that maketh it lawfull to kill as when the partie commanded to be slaine hath deserved to die But God to whom all men are debters and who is the Lord of every mans life may command to kill without any injustice although there be no such apparent cause or circumstance which should make that act lawfull 2. Object Further it is objected thus to restore that which is committed to a mans trust is a naturall dutie yet this is dispensed with when as a man refuseth to restore to a mad man his sword or weapon which he gave one to keepe so the Magistrate ordinarily dispenseth with that precept Thou shalt not kill when he commandeth malefactors to be slaine so the Macchabees dispensed with the Sabbath when they resolved to fight with their enemies upon the Sabbath 1 Macchab. chap. 2. as these precepts are dispensed withall by men so also may the rest Answ. 1. For the first instance there is in that particular case no dispensation against the law of nature for then by such dispensation it should bee made lawfull not to restore that which is committed to trust which cannot bee made lawfull by any dispensation for this were to crosse and overthrow the law of nature but not to restore a sword to a furious man is but a particular interpretation of that generall law of nature wherein the intent of that law is kept for it is agreeable to the law of nature to render whatsoever belongeth to another and the reason thereof is because it is just so it is lawfull by the same law nothwithstanding not to give unto a mad man his owne sword because it is just also the meaning and reason of the law is kept because the furious man would doe some hurt with his weapon and therefore to minister occasion and instruments unto his rage were unjust 2. In the other two particulars there is no dispensation but an interpretation rather or declaration of the law in the
of woodden ladders are more forbidden for by such climing up their nakednesse might appeare both before and beneath Tostat. quast 47. 3. Some doe thus moralize this precept that simply it is not forbidden to goe up by steps for afterward there were 15. steps made to goe up to the Altar which Salomon made therefore they would have it to be a figurative speech and the meaning to be this minorem Patre non dicis incarnatum Filium Thou shalt not say that the Sonne being incarnate is lesse than the Father this it is not to goe up by steps unto the Altar Rupert Thom. So also Gloss. interlinear Qui gradus in Trinitate faciunt c. They which make degrees in the Trinity doe ascend by steps unto the Altar But this is somewhat farre fetched neither is there any necessity to leave the literall sense for the reason why afterward steps were made unto the Altar was for that then the use of linnen breeches was common which now was rare and among other Priestly garments the Levites afterward were appointed to put on such linnen breeches when they ministred chap. 28. Vsus femoralium nondum fuit introductus The use of breeches was not yet brought in c. but was afterward enjoyned to the Priests Lyran. And although as some write this fashion of garments to cover the secret parts was first invented by Semiramis the wife of Ninus King of Babylon before Abrahams time yet that custome was not common among the Israelites Tostat. qu. 49. QUEST XXVIII Why they were forbidden to use steps up to the Altar Vers. 26. THat thy filthinesse be not discovered 1. This then was the reason why they should not goe up by steps lest that in the going up by the flying abroad of their garments their secret parts might be discovered for sanctâ—tati pietati decorum honestum conjungi debet unto sanctity and piety must be joyned comelinesse and honesty Gallas for the Ministers of God committing any thing uncomely in Gods service doe therein offend two wayes both shewing their owne evill inclination and beside contumeliam inferunt ordini clericali they bring a contumely and reproach upon the whole order Tostat. quaest 49. Yea among the Gentiles there was a comelinesse and decencie observed in their publike assemblies whereupon that Law was made Inscenam sine subligaculo prodeat nemo Let none come into the stage without his close garments how much more ought all things to bee done with comelinesse and honesty in the sacred assemblies Gallas 2. Another reason was Arrogantia ambitio pâ—mposa graduum qualis apud idololatras tum in usu erat Deo non placuit c. An arrogant and ambitious pompe in stayers such as was in use among the Idolaters was not pleasing unto God Lippoman 3. Likewise this was commanded for the further detestation of idolatry that they should not any wayes resemble or imitate the uncleane and filthy fashions used in the idolatrous service of Priapus when the Priest ascending up aloft by certaine staires used in most beastly manner turning himselfe toward the people to discover and shew unto them his secret parts to stirre them the more unto uncleane and beastly lust Lyran. Tostat. QUEST XXIX Of the abominable Idoll of the Gentiles called Priapus and the filthy usages thereto belonging NOw this filthy and abominable Idoll Priapus which was worshipped among the Gentiles was taken up upon this occasion 1. This Priapus was a young man of Hellespontus who insolita magnitudiâ—e membri genitalis excedebat omnes exceeded all other in the greatnesse of his secret parts and being expelled thence as a corrupter of his country went into Grecia and there by wanton and unchaste women was made much of and afterward they made him one of their gods 2. As was their god such was his sacrifice for they used to offer unto him an Asse and they that came to that abominable sacrifice both men and women used to entermingle themselves in caves and woods and each with other wrought filthinesse and upon this occasion they used to plant woods and groves by their Idols that they might have fitter opportunity to use their beastly lust 3. This Idoll Priapus some thinke was the same which was called Belpheghâ—r and to the abominable sacrifices of this Idoll did the Madianitish women entice the Israelites Numb 25. who afterward fell unto the like Idolatry for Asa his mother Maacha whom hee put downe consecrated a grove to this Idoll Priapus as Hierome translateth the word Mipletzeth which signifieth an horrible or abominable Idoll 1 King 15.12 and he put downe the Sodomites and eâ—feminate persons who as it seemeth were the worshippers of that Idoll for they which were most beastly in their lust thought they were best accepted of their god So they which adored Venus the more they were given to venery the better they thought they served Venus so that the more common the harlots and strumpets were the more they thought they pleased their Goddesse Venus The Lord therefore forbiddeth his people all resemblance or appearance of uncleannesse because he would have them detest and abhorre the abominable fashions of the Heathen Tostat. qu. 50. QUEST XXX Why the secret parts are counted uncomely THy filthinesse or nakednesse c. 1. The secret parts of man are not in their naturall use more uncleane or unseemly than other organicall parts of the body for they have their necessary use both for the avoiding of the superfluous excrements of the body and to serve for generation and procreation and our first parents before they transgressed were naked and yet not ashamed of their nakednesse 2. But after sinne entred then these parts grew to be uncomely because of that inordinate motion and stirring which is in those parts more than in any other for by experience it is found that the eyes hands feet and other parts are more obedient unto reason than those unruly parts and it is harder for one to bridle lust than anger or any other passion 3. And herein appeareth the wisdome of the Creator that hath set these uncomely parts in the middest of the body that they might more easily be covered whereas if they were the extreme parts as where the head hands or feet are they could not be so well hid and beside the mercie of God herein is manifest that our other parts our eyes hands feet should not be so unruly or disordered for then they also should have seemed as uncomely and so penotâ—â— inutiles redderemur wee should have beene altogether unprofitable and unapt to doe any service in the world if our necessary and organicall parts should have had the like opinion of uncomelinesse cleaving unto them 4. Now seeing these parts being comely by nature yet are made uncomely by sinne their beastly errour is to be abhorred which thinke it no more dishonest to use the secret parts of nature openly as well as any other members such were the Cynicall Philosophers
out B. Babing So the Apostle exhorteth That no man presume to understand above that which is meet to understand but that he understand according to sobrietie Rom. 12.3 CHAP. XXI 1. The Method and Argument IN the former Chapter was propounded the Morall law chiefly mixed with ceremoniall constitutions in the end of the Chapter now follow the Judiciall lawes unto the 10. verse of the 23. Chapter from thence unto the 20. verse are propounded certaine ceremoniall orders in generall as touching sacrifices and their feasts the more speciall and particular prescriptions concerning ceremonies are at large set forth in the booke of Leviticus This Chapter consisteth of three parts The first is of the manumission and setting at liberty Hebrew servants both men and women unto vers 12. Concerning the man servant these Lawes are given 1. How long he shall serve vers 2. 2. When his wife is to goe out with him when not vers 3.4 3. What is to be done to the servant that will not be made free vers 5. to vers 7. Concerning the maid servant 1. Upon what condition she may be sold to her masteâ— not to be sold againe to a stranger vers 7 8. 2 What is to be done unto her if she be betrothed to his sonne vers 9. 3. What must be performed to her if he marry another wife vers 10. 4. What must be done if he doe not performe these things vers 11. Secondly there follow certaine mulcts and punishments for divers offences committed by man as of murther vers 12 13 14. smiting of parents vers 15. stealing of men vers 16. cursing of parents vers 17. hurting of a man vers 19.18 beating of servants to death vers 18 19. hurting of women with childe vers 22. blemishing of servants in their eye tooth c. vers 24. to 28. Thirdly of mischiefe and dammages that are occasioned by other mens default as by their oxe that useth to push and goare man or woman vers 28. to 33. or hurteth anothers oxe vers 35 36. and of dammages which are caused by the digging of pits and wells vers 33 34. 2. The divers readings Vers. 3. If he came with his body A.P. alone with his body I. If he came in single V. or alone B.G.C.S. The sense is kept not the word better than with what garment he entred c. L. but the word guph signifieth a body as gupha in the feminine is taken Exod. 21.3 Vers. 7. She shall not goe out as men servants B.G.V.I. cum caeter not as maids S.L. Vers. 8. Who hath not betrothed her I.V.A.P. better than betrothed her B.G.C.L. S. for here the negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lo is omitted Vers. 8. In dealing deceitfully or perfidiously with her I. or trespassing against her A. better than in despising her B.G.C.L.S. for bagadh signifieth properly to deceive and breake covenant as Malach. 2.10.14 the meaning is he hath broken appointment of marriage with her Vers. 10. Her rayment and dwelling or habitation I.A. conversation S. better than price of her chastity I. or recompence of her virginity G. or duty of marriage B. V. lying with her C. her time P. ghorah of ghâ—r signifieth an habitation or dwelling Vers. 16. And it be found in his hand I.A.P.C.V.G. that is the person which he hath stollen better than if it be proved upon him B. or if he be found in it S. if he be convicted of the fault L. Vers. 22. If no destruction follow B.V.I. or death G. A. P.C. better than if the child come forth without fashion S. or but she liveth L. for it is as well understood of the infant as of the mother if neither of them dye c. 2. Questions discussed QUEST I. Of the necessity of the Iudiciall lawes Vers. 1. THese are the judgements c. 1. After the Morall law followeth the Judicials for the Civill law issueth out of the Morall law which is the fountaine and foundation of all other Lawes And as the Morall law is principally grounded upon the Law of Nature so in the next place the Civill law also floweth from the same fountaine as it may appeare by the generall use thereof seeing no common-wealth can stand without Civill and Judiciall constitutions Borrh. 2. And Moses having propounded the Lawes which binde in conscience so now he setteth forth the Penall lawes whereby the obstinacy of men might be restrained for if a man were left to himselfe Nemo est qui non suo arbitrio mâ—lit vivore there is none that had not rather live as he list himselfe Galas 3. Therefore because it might fall out that all would not be obedient to the Morall precepts necessarium suit praescribere c. it was necessary to prescribe what punishment every transgressor of the Law should be subject unto Rupertus QUEST II. The difference of the Morall Iudiciall and Ceremoniall lawes THe judgements 1. The Judiciall lawes Ceremoniall and Morall are thus distinguished some precepts have vim obligandi ex ipso dictamine rationis power to binde by the very inducement of naturall reason though there were no other Law to enforce them such are the morall precepts some Lawes doe not absolutely binde by the instinct and perswasion of naturall reason sed ex institutione divina vel humana but by a divine and humane institution which if they concerne such things as appertaine unto God are ceremonials if they respect the ordering of men and directing of humane affaires they are Judiciall lawes two things then are required in Judiciall lawes that they concerne ordinationem humanam the ordering and directing of men and that they doe binde non ex sola ratione sed ex institutione not by reason onely but by the institution Thom. 1.2 qu. 104. art 1. in Cor. 2. Now there are foure sorts of Judiciall lawes one of the Prince toward the subjects another of the Citizens among themselves the third of the Citizens toward strangers and the fourth concerning domesticall duties as of the fathers masters husbands toward their children servants wives Thomas QUEST III. How the Ceremonials are abolished FUrther concerning the validity of the Ceremoniall law 1. The Ceremonies were of two sorts either such as were meerely figurative signifying such things as were to be performed in Christ as Circumcision and the paschall Lambe which are in no respect to be observed for this were in a manner to deny Christ to be come if the figures should still remaine in use then the body is yet to be expected 2. There was another sort of ceremonies which doe not directly concerne the signification of Christ to come but only shewed munditiam populi illius sanitatem the cleanlinesse and health of that people as to abstaine from swines flesh which if one should now observe as it was commanded in the Law he sinneth but if for some other end as for his health or such like he offendeth not Tostatus quaest 1. 3. Some ceremonies were
from all society and colloquy of men till he had his judgement Galas And by the Law Cornelia among the Romans he which had killed another with sword or poison or by false testimony lost his head if he were of the better sort if of meaner condition he was hanged on the crosse or cast unto wild beasts Simler 5. And the reason of this severity was because murtherers deface the image of God in man and they lay violent hands to take away his temporall life for whom Christ died to give him eternall Marbach 6. But it must be understood that the murtherer was to dye by the hand of the Magistrate it was not lawfull for every one to kill him Iun. For the murther was first to be tried out by witnesses which could not be done but before the Judge Simler QUEST XXXVII In what sense the Lord is said to offer a man into ones hand Vers. 13. IF a man hath not laid wait but God hath offred c. Neither can a man take away the life of another though he doe willingly attempt it unlesse God deliver him into his hands yet this is the difference that where a man intendeth not to kill and yet killeth illic tantùm Deus fecit there God only did it Hîc autem Deus homo propter voluntatem facientis sed non fecit Deus ut homo Here man and God doe it because of the will of him that did it though God otherwise doth it than man So Augustine quaest 79. in Exod. 2. So God is said to offer or as the Hebrew phrase is to cause him to run upon his hand when it is done nolente imprudente homine man not willing nor minding it Iun. And so this act seemeth to be casuall or accidentall unto man which are so called non quia nullam causauâ— habent not because they have no cause for that is impossible that any thing should be done without a cause but because causarum confluentium ordâ— nobis est incognitus the order of causes concurring is unknowne unto us Tostat. 3. Although the cause appeare not to us why the Lord suffred him that is so offred to ones hand to be slaine yet we are not to doubt but that it is most just Ex causa occulta permisit interfici c. God suffred him to be slaine upon some hid cause Lyran. occulta aequitate by an hid equity justo judicio paravit illum occidendum he ordained him to be slaine in his just judgement Cajetan Vel pro sceleribus vel ad emendationem purgationem malorum quae egerat Either for his wickednesse or for the amendment or purging of the evils which he had done Tostat. quaest 15. 4. Rupertus here giveth instance how after this manner Saul was twice delivered into Davids hand in the cave and when he tooke the speare and water pot from him and further saith that permissu legis poterat illum occidere by the suffrance of the Law he might have killed him and gone afterward to some of the Cities of refuge But there is great difference betweene this offring of a man into ones hand here spoken of and that oblation of Davids enemy unto his hand for Moses speaketh here of such an unlooked for event whereby one is slaine that opportunity offred to David was to trie his patience not to give him any warrant to kill and if David had taken that opportunity to slay Saul and had therein followed the carnall counsell of his servants he had sinned in laying his hands upon the Lords anointed for if Davids heart smote him for taking away a peece of Sauls garment how would it have tormented him if he had taken away his life Neither were the Cities of refuge appointed for wilfull murthers such as this should have beene seeing that there was enmity before betweene Saul and David QUEST XXXVIII What places of refuge were appointed I Will appoint him a place to flie unto c. 1. This place during the sojourning of the Israelites in the desert was the Tabernacle as appeareth in the next verse where mention is made of the Altar but after they came into the land of Canaan there were six Cities of refuge appointed three beyond Jordan and three of this side Iun. 2. But yet it seemeth that the Tabernacle afterward and the Temple was still a place of refuge as appeareth by Ioab who fled into the Temple and tooke hold of the hornes of the Altar which notwithstanding could not privilege him QUEST XXXIX Why the Lord appointed places for such to flie unto NOw the reasons why the Lord appointed Cities of refuge were these 1. Lest that the innocent party might be slaine by the friends of him whom he had killed before his cause was heard therefore he was appointed to flie to one of the Cities that the manner of the slaughter might be there considered of by the Judges Simler 2. And to this end it was so appointed that he might stay there to the death of the high Priest Iun. who was a type of our blessed Saviour by whose precious death we are all set free 3. And this was done ut mentem corum hac ratione medeatur c. to heale and allay the minde and fury of those which otherwise would delight in murther Theodoret. For by his absence and in continuance of time the rage of those that sought his life would be qualified and therefore God provideth that they should not be still provoked by the continuall fight of him 4. And further by this that hee which killeth one unwittingly is appointed to flie it is shewed quòd reus poenae efficitur that yet he is guilty of some punishment Theodoret. So that involuntary killing was punished with a kinde of banishment among the Israelites Simler So likewise among the Athenians such kinde of manslaughter was censured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one yeeres exile Galas And so among the Israelites he that escaped unto one of the Cities of refuge was not to goe out of the limits and bounds of the City if he did it was lawfull for the kinsmen of the man that was slaine to kill him Simler QUEST XL. What is to be counted wilfull murther Vers. 14. BVt if a man come praesumptuously c. 1. The word 〈◊〉 signifieth to deale arrogantly insolently to be lift up with swelling pride as Psal. 124.5 it is applied unto the swelling waves of the sea Oleaster and two things must concurre in wilfull murther it must be done wittingly and willingly Hic non solum inâ—â—ntio occidendi sed mentis utraque pars intellectus voluntas describitur Here not only the intention of killing but either part of the minde is understood the understanding in doing it with guile and the will in presuming Cajetane 2. Cajetane thinketh further that this is a divers law from the first generall prohibition of killing vers 12. for here the law speaketh of killing a neighbour or companion there of
so wicked that would commit paricide and therefore Solon that wise law-maker among the Athenians maketh no mention of paricide nor yet the Romans had any law against such untill the 642. yeare from the building of the Citie which was the 100. yeare before the nativitie of Christ one Publicius Malcolus with the helpe of his servants killed his mother against whom the Citie decreed this punishment that he should be put into a sacke together with a Cocke an Ape a Viper and a Dogge and so cast into the water Tostat. quaest 17. The Egyptians caused such first to be beaten with thornes and then to be burnt with thornes The Macedonians did stone them to death Pelarg. Plato lib. 9. de legibus would have such grievously punished unto death and then to be left unburied 2. It is a like sinne to kill the father as to doe it to the mother yet the father is set before as the more honourable person and fewer examples are extant of those that have killed their fathers than of the other Oedipus is said unwittingly to have killed his father Laius King of Thebes taking him for his enemie But Orestes killed his mother Cliteâ—nestra Agamemnons wife wittingly so did Alcmeon his mother being charged so to doe by his father Amphiaraus being slaine in the Thebane warre to the which his wife perswaded him to goe and therefore being deadly wounded he commanded his sonne to kill her Ninia likewise the sonne of Ninus killed his mother Semiramis after he had carnally knowne her Such beastly examples of paricide Heathen histories afford who not knowing God were without naturall affection and disobedient to parents which were the sinnes of the Heathen Rom. 1.30 Some write that Iudas killed his father and married his mother Tostat. qu. 17. But it is not like that if Iudas had so apparently shewed his wickednesse before that our blessed Saviour would have chosen him to be one of his Apostles QUEST XLV The law of man-stealing expounded Vers. 16. HE that stealeth a man and selleth him or it be found with him c. 1. Some understand if it be found with the buyer that is the man that is stollen be found sold over and delivered to the buyer Oleaster But then there should be a repetition of the same thing for as much was said before and selleth him there cannot be a seller without a buyer 2. Some doe thus expound if it be found that is proved by him that he hath stolen a man So Lyran. Tostat. Vatab Simler and the Latine text expresseth the same sense convictus noxae if he be convicted of the offence But this clause had beene superfluous for this must be understood in all lawes that the offence must be sufficiently proved before it be censured Againe in this sense the law should be imperfect not determining what should become of him that had stolen a man onely and not sold him some say restitution should be made by the like he should give two men for one or give the price of two men But this is no where to be found restitution indeed was to be made in the theft of other things Exod. 22.1 but there was not the like reason for men 3. Therefore the meaning is this that if one steale a man whether he have sold him and delivered him over or if he be found with him as yet unsold in both cases he should suffer death for his malice appeared evidently in the stealing onely that he intended to sell him over Iun. Gallas Osiand So also Lippom. he was to be put to death if the theft were yet found with him propter crudelissimum institutum for his cruell enterprise how much more si desperata fuerit venditi redemptio if being sold he were past redemption 4. By the ancient Romane lawes such men-stealers were condemned to the metal mines by a latter law of Constantine they were to be cast unto the wilde beasts Simler QUEST XLVI The reason why man-stealing was punished by death THe reasons why this kinde of theft in stealing of men was so severely punished with death were these 1. Because man was created according to Gods image therefore in respect of the excellencie and preeminence of the thing that was stolen the punishment ought to be the greater 2. Because by this meanes he that was sold lost his libertie which is as precious as life it selfe and to bring a man into servitude quid aliud quà m sexcentis eum mortibus objicere what was it else than to expose him to an hundred deaths Gallas 3. And beside they could not steale men and sell them to the Israelites but it would bee knowne and therefore it is like that after they had stolen them they sold them over to the Gentiles and so they were in danger that were so sold over to be corrupted in religion and seduced to idolatrie and so drawne away from the service of God and by this meanes be brought into bondage both in soule and bodie Simler The Interlinearie Glosse therefore thus expoundeth diabolo obnoxium fâ—cerit hath sold him that is brought him into the devils service 4. Of this sinne were Iosephs brethren guiltie in selling him over to the idolatrous Egyptians who therein had a vaine perswasion that they were not guiltie of his bloud because they spared his life but in selling him over to bee a slave and that to an idolatrous people as much as in them lay eum è medio sustulerunt they tooke him away as out of the world Gallasius QUEST XLVII What kinde of cursing of parents is here understood Vers. 17. HE that curseth his father or mother c. 1. There are two kinds of cursing one assumpto Dei nomine when Gods name is taken in vaine withall another is without Borrhaius Lippoman thinketh that this is understood of the first kinde But seeing the blaspheming of the name of God deserved death of it selfe Levit. 24. and this law doth properly punish the cursing and blaspheming of the parents it seemeth generally to be intended against all kinde of cursing and wiâ—hing evill unto the parents 2. And it seemeth to be understood of an use and custome of cursing not of every railing word which sometime should bee uttered by the childe in rage and heat for every such word to inflict death upon the childe would be thought too hard sed ille qui assuefactus est maledicere patri maetri c. but he that is accustomed to curse his father and mother and that for small matters deserveth death Tostat. as that law against disobedient children Deut. 21.18 is made against those that are incorrigible and are confirmed in their disobedience and stubbornnesse So also Cajetane As he that smiteth them is worthie of death so he that curseth nisi imperfectio actus excuset puta si non deliberato aut leve verbum c. unlesse the imperfection of the act excuse or he speake a light word of railing c. 3. And as
cursing to the face of the parents is judged worthie of death so also publike backbiting and detracting Publice enim detrahens perinde est ac si palam detraheret For he that openly backbiteth his parents is as if he did it to their face but it is otherwise in private backbiting and speaking evill of them for detractor reveretur eum cui detrahit c. the privie detractor doth feare and reverence him whom he speaketh evill of but he that curseth to the face is impudent and shamelesse c. QUEST XLVIII What manner of strife the law meaneth Vers. 18. WHen men strive together 1. As contention is in words so rixa strife properly is in deeds cum ex rixa invicem se percutiunt when striving they fall to blowes Thom. 2. The case is put of men but if either a woman should strike a man and wound him or one woman should hurt another they are subject to the same law Tostat. qu. 19. 3. And this law must be understood of those which strive and fight one with another each offending the other not when one defendeth himselfe one cannot offend another without mortall and grievous sinne but one may defend himselfe without sinne and yet notwithstanding he may sinne sometime more sometime lesse in defending himselfe if he onely seeke in his owne defence to repell the wrong that is offered it is no sinne si cum animo vindictae odii c. If with a minde of revenge and hatred he defend himselfe he sinneth either lesse when he findeth his anger kindled and his patience violated or more when he bindeth himselfe wholly to bee revenged Sic Thom. 2.2 qu. 41. art 1. 4. By smiting with stone or fist is understood all kinde of assaulting one either afarre off with stone arrow dart or such like or neere hand as with sword staffe in the hand Simler or all kinde of hurting either with weapon or instrument or without Tostat. 5. And the law meaneth such hurting where no member was perished for in that case they were to give eye for eye hand for hand foot for foot vers 24. Simler QUEST XLIX What punishment the smiter had if he which were smitten died Vers. 19. IF he rise againe c. then shall he that smote him goe quit 1. That is he shall be freed from the sentence of death though he be not innocent before God nor yet altogether free from all civill punishment for in this case he is to allow his charges for his resting and to pay for his healing 2. But here the doubt is what punishment he should have that in striving so smote his brother that he died of it Cajetane thinketh that in this case he should flie unto one of the Cities of refuge Quia non ex intentione sed ex repentina rixa percussio facta est Because the blow or stroke was given not of purpose but occasioned by a sudden brawle c. But if it had beene so as if death had followed upon such smiting the smiter should goe free so neither death not following but some other hurt that he is constrained to keepe his bed should he have beene taxed so much as with the charges if the taking away of the life in this case had not beene punishable much lesse any lesse hurt being not mortall 3. Therefore I preferre here the judgement of Tostatus that if he which was thus smitten in a fray or brawle died he that smote him was to die whether hee were Hebrew that was so killed or stranger whether bond or free for it was not lawfull for them to kill a Gentile or stranger sojourning among them and if a free man killed a free man or a servant a free man he was to die without all question and if a free man killed anothers servant hee was to die also for if a master killed his owne servant outright he was punished by death vers 20. much more if he killed anothers servant Tostat. quast 19. And that in this case they which in strife killed one another deserved to die it is evident both by the generall law before vers 12. He that smiteth a man that he die shall die the death and by a necessarie consequence here If he rise againe that is smitten and walke he that smote him shall goe quit that is from the punishment of death it followeth then if he doe not rise againe but die that he shall not goe quit QUEST L. What should become of the smiter if the other died after he walked upon his staffe Vers. 19. ANd walke without upon his staffe But what if he die after he hath risen and walked upon his staffe 1. R. Salomon thinketh that the smiter was to bee apprehended and kept till he that was smitten were perfectly recovered and if he did not the other was to die and by walking upon the staffe he saith is meant the perfect recovery of his health as Ezech. 4. the staffe of bread is taken for the vertue and fulnesse of bread by a metaphor But though such metaphoricall speeches are usuall in the Prophets yet in the setting downe of lawes words must be taken in their literall sense Tostat. 2. Therefore because the law saith If he walke without or abroad upon his staffe the other shall goe quit the meaning is though he lie downe upon his bed againe and afterward die yet the other shall goe quiâ— and the reason is because after hee sitteth up and walketh and seemeth to be past the danger and falleth downe againe Magis probabile est quod mortuus est â—x negligentia c. It is more probable that he died by his owne negligence and carelesnesse in keeping of himselfe or by some other occasion than of the smiting Lyran. 3. But if he did not rise at all from his bed and being risen walked but a little about the house upon his staffe and come not abroad and afterward died then the other should not goe quit Tostat. qu. 20. QUEST LI. Of the equetie of this law in bearing of the charges Vers. 19 HE shall beare his charges for his resting and pay for his healing c. 1. That is he shall pay all manner of charges which he was put unto about his healing as to the Physitians and for the physicke and medicines which he used and for his diet which upon this occasion was extraordinary and so more chargeable Tostat. qu. 22. Likewise he was to beare the charges of the ministers and keepers that attended upon him during the time of his lying Simler 2. The intendment of this law is that full recompence and satisfaction should be made for any dammage or losse which happened unto another and yet so as that such recompence being made the Lord would have one to forgive another that charitie should not be violated nor any grudge or purpose of revenge remaine Oleaster 3. This law was more equall indifferent than that law of the Romans contained in the 12. tables that
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 law of retalion there is no respect whether one did the hurt voluntarily or involuntarily but onely ut tantum reddatur pro tanto that so much be rendred for so much but it is not just that if one did hurt another against his will that the like hurt of purpose should be done to him againe Tostat. 2. But these objections may easily bee removed For first this law of retalion must be understood with two reservations that it is given de nocumentis personalibus concerning hurt done unto mens persons but it is otherwise in nocumentis rerum in the damage of ones things or substance for in that case not like is to be rendred for like but at the least double for one sometime more chap. 22.4 The other exception is that these personall wrongs are understood to be personarum non qualificatarum of persons not qualified but of common and ordinarie persons as is evident by the former law vers 15. that he which did smite his father and mother should not be smitten againe but was to die for it Cajetan Secondly this law of retalion must necessarily bee expounded of voluntarie and wilfull hurts for if hee that killed a man against his will was not to bee killed againe vers 13. so neither was hee which had done any hurt unwittingly to his neighbour in any of his parts or members to receive the like againe 3. This law then whatsoever can be objected to the contrarie was most equall those times considered 1. Lex talionis permissa est duro populo c. This law of retalion was permitted unto that hard people Sed charitas fidelium mitigatrix est hujus legis The charitie of the faithfull and beleevers doth mitigate the severitie of this law which teacheth them not to seeke revenge Lippoman 2 And Augustine further sheweth the reason of this law that it was made to moderate the unreasonable desire of men in seeking revenge Nonne videmus homines leviter laesos moliri caedem c. for doe we not see men being but a little hurt to goe about to kill to thirst for bloud c. therefore this law An eye for an eye c. non â—omes sed limes furoris est c. is not the kindler but the limiter of rage and revenge Lib. 12. contr Faust. cap. 25. 4. But whereas our blessed Saviour Matth. 5.39 having repeated this law addeth But I say unto you resist not evill c. he doth not abrogate this law but onely freeth it from the corrupt interpretations of the Jewes who hereby tooke unto themselves great libertie in following and fostering private revenge Our blessed Saviour therefore sheweth that privat men should not seeke to revenge their owne wrongs noâ— arrogate unto themselves that power which belongeth to the Magistrate who if hee did not right their wrongs they ought with patience rather to beare them than to bee Judges and revengers in their owne case Marbach QUEST LXI Of the servants freedome for the losse of an eye or tooth Vers. 26. IF a man smite his servant c. 1. This law is to bee understood of such servants as were not Hebrewes as may appeare vâ—â—s 20. for they were not to use the Hebrew servants so cruelly Levit. 25.38 Tostatus thinketh that if an Hebrew servant received a maime hee was not onely to bee set at libertie for his maime but also some other recompence was to be made beside because hee was to goe out free simply in the seventh yeere But I rather herein subscribe to Lyranus that in this case the former law of retalion was to take place if an Hebrew servant lost either an eye or tooth at his masters hand So also Iunius 2. If either one servant did maime another or a free man anothers servant Tostatus thinketh that in this case the smiter was to buy out his service that was maimed and if he were not able then hee was to serve in his place and this generall rule hee giveth that a quocunque servus percutiatur debet effici liber of whomsoever the servant was smitten hee was to bee made free His reason is because another had not more privilege than the servants master if then he was to bee set at libertie if his master smote him and maimed him much more if another did it Contra. This law onely containeth an exception concerning the master in all other the former law was to stand in force an eye for an eye c. which was no privilege for the stranger more than for the master but a greater punishment the master is privileged and exempted from the law of retalion for if the master should have lost a limme or member for his servant there would never have beene any agreement or accord betweene them afterward Marbach And therefore the law provideth that which was lesse grievous to the master and more beneficiall for the servant that he should have his freedome for his maime Simler Privandi enim sunt dominatu tanquam indigni For they were to bee deprived of their mastership and government as unworthy that could use it no more moderatly Gallas 3. There are foure kinds of smiting 1. When death followed whereof the law is set downe before vers 20. 2. If any limme were perished 3. If a wound were made and bloud followed 4. When no skin was broken but onely the blewnesse of the stripe seene for these two last there was no punishment appointed for the master but onely for the two first the one is provided for before vers 20. the second here Tostat. 4. By these two parts of the eye and tooth here expressed all other parts which might be in like manner blemished are signified Simler Lyranus out of R. Salomon nameth these parts for the which if they were perished the servant was to goe out free the ten fingers the ten toes the eares eyes nose and secret parts And why not also the hands and armes feet and legges as before in part is set downe in the law of retalion vers 24. 5. Procopius and Rabanus doe make this mysticall sense of this law by the eye they understand the minde by the tooth discretionem per quam subtiliter sententias Scripturarum comminuit the discerning whereby one divideth the sentences of Scripture if any doe corrupt the judgement of his servant in matters of religion he must leave such a master and go where he may be better taught But where the literall meaning is plaine such mysticall applications are superfluous QUEST LXII What manner of smiting and goaring of a beast is here understood Vers. 28. IF an oxe goare c. 1. One kinde is put for all à parte totum intelligendum est One kinde of beast is named for the rest what beast soever is hurtfull unto man must thus bee served Augustin qu. 8. in Exod. So also Lyranus And this is agreeable to that law Gen. 9 5. At the hand of every beast will I require your bloud Gallas But
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
penaltie than the servant because he was the cause but if he were a mercenarie man or an hireling then he together with the master that set him aworke are joyntly to beare the losse because it was in his power to have refused Tostat. So then not onely he that maketh such a pit and leaveth it uncovered but he that also caused it are punishable by this law Iun. 3. But in this other point R. Salomon his opinion is very probable that this law must be understood of such pits as were made in such common and usuall places where cattell used to goe not of such as were digged in solitarie and unfrequented places as in the mountaines for then it was a meere chance if any such casualtie happened Tostat. Lyran. Neither can this law take place now when men have their severall and divided grounds wherein they make their pits and wels which divisions were not so usuall among the Israelites then Gallas 4. Though mention be made onely of the oxe and asse that shall fall into the pit yet there is the same reason of other cattell as of sheepe and goats Lyran. But there is a greater doubt what should bee done if a man and woman should perish by such meanes Simlerus seemeth to be of opinion that the owner or maker of the pit should be punished in this case as if hee had not kept his oxe that used to goare But the life of man is of greater value than to be taken away where there is no direct law but by a kinde of consequent If indeed any man should of purpose leave open a well to intrap his brother here he is guiltie of wilfull murther because he lay in wait for his brother and therefore was to die for it according to the law vers 14. But if the pit bee left open of negligence in this case the digger of the pit shall not make satisfaction for the life of a man as for a beast there decaying because a man in his reason and discretion could better prevent the danger of falling into the pit than a bruit beast 5. Gregorie doth thus mystically applie this law Quid est aperire cisternam nisi sacra scriptura arcaâ— penetrare c. What is it to open a well but to search into the Arke of the sacred Scripture Subliâ—â—s sensus coram non capientibus silentiâ— contegat Let him cover with silence the high and secret sense before those which cannot conceive them otherwise he shall be guiltie si per verba ejus mens in scandalum c. if by his words the simple minde of the hearer shall be scandalized Gregor 17. moral cap. 13. 6. Thomas doth thus moralize Then one giveth occasion of falling to another which is to fall into the pit quando facit aliquid vel dicit minùs ratum when hee doth or saith any thing which is not right whereby occasion is ministred to another of falling Thom. quodlibet 4. art 23. ad 3. QUEST LXX How the live and dead oxe are to be divided where they were not of equall value Vers. 35. IF a mans oxe hurt his neighbours oxe c. they shall divide c. 1. This is not meant of the oxe onely but of other cattell also as if one mans ramme kill another à parte totum intelligendum est by one part the whole is to be understood August quaest 82. in Exod. 2. And this law is most equall because it cannot be knowne which of them first assaulted the other the one being not knowne to push more than the other that both the live dead should be equally divided Simler The like law the Romans had in the 12. tables that if ones beast hurt another the owner should make it good or deliver the beast Gallas 3. But this division must bee understood where the beasts are of equall value otherwise there should be wrong done to one of them As if the dead oxe were worth six pound and the live oxe but two pound if both should be divided then he that was owner of the live oxe should receive foure pound twice so much as his oxe were worth and the other should lose two pound in the price of his beast the meaning then is that an equall division should be made where the oxen are equall in value and the losse in the dead oxe to bee equally borne by them both as if the live oxe bee worth six pound and the dead oxe was worth as much being alive but now is valued at foure pound then either of them both the oxen being sold should have five pound a peece and so each of them should beare 20.s. losse Lyran. But where the value was unequall first the price must bee made up in money where the oddes was and then the rest divided as if the live oxe were worth 12. sicles and the dead oxe worth but six alive and foure now he is dead these being now both sold make 16. sicles in all of this summe first six sicles must be given unto the owner of the live oxe to make up the equall value of the dead oxe which was worth but six then the residue being ten sicles should bee divided to each of them five sicles and so the losse should bee indifferently borne betweene them Tostat. quaest 32. 4. To know then how an equall division may bee made when the beasts are of unequall value these rules must be observed 1. Si non perdit uterque aequaliter â—f both doe not lose alike the owner of the live beast and the owner of the dead the division is not equall Tostat. quaest 33. Medietas damni debet poni super unum c. The halfe of the losse must bee laid upon one and the other halfe upon the other Lyran. As if the live oxe be worth 12. sicles and the dead oxe was worth but six being alive and now is sold for foure here are two sicles lost which must bee equally borne betweene them so that the owner must have five sicles and so he loseth but one 2. Another rule is that if either of the owners receive more for the live or dead oxe than it was worth being alive the division is not good as in the former example if the owner of the live oxe should have above 12. sicles or the owner of the dead above six 3. If the owner of the dead oxe have lesse allowed him than his dead oxe is worth as if hee should receive but three sicles when the dead carcase is sold for foure 4. If the owner of the dead oxe receive as much for the dead as he was worth alive as namely six sicles whereas he is worth but foure the division is unjust for now the whole losse of two sicles should lie altogether upon the owner of the live oxe Tostat. quaest 33. 4. Places of Doctrine 1. Doct. Of keeping the seventh day of rest holy unto God Vers. 2 IN the seventh yeare he shall goe out free Consider here
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
publike peace and safety is violated as in the Campe among souldiers and robbing by the high way where ones life is put in danger All these kindes being more than simple thefts may receive the sentence of death by Moses Law and Magistrates herein may with a good conscience execute the rigour of the Law upon such violent outragious impudent wanton and incorrigible thefts But they are wisely to consider every circumstance and the occasion that draweth one to steale whether he doe it of necessity to releeve his hungry soule or of an evill custome and obstinate minde to maintaine his lewd and unthrifty life In the first case it seemeth to be too sharpe to take away ones life unlesse he be such an one as will take no warning but continueth hardened in his sinne And so for simple and single theft only except it be in stealing of men unlesse it be aggravated by other circumstances concurring 〈◊〉 violence rapine obstinacie custome in sinne and such like neither the Law of Moses prescribeth punishment of death nor yet is it practised by our Lawes which in such cases intend favour by allowing the privilege of the booke See before p. 6. QUEST IV. Why the theefe breaking up might be killed Vers. 6. IF a theefe be found breaking up c. 1. R. Salomon thinketh that this Law which alloweth the theefe found breaking up an house to be slaine is understood not only of theeves that breake in by night but by day also and that clause which followeth When the Sunne riseth upon him they interpret metaphorically that if it be evident and manifest as the light that the theefe came not only to steale but to kill that whether by day or night he may be killed So also the Chalde Interpreter seemeth to follow the same sense Si oculus testium vidit eum If the eye of witnesses saw him that is if it were evident that he came not only as a theefe but to assault Contra. Though this be true that a man might defend himselfe even by day against him that assaulted his life yet this is not the meaning here the words of the Law are literally not metaphorically to be understood 2. The reason of this difference betweene a night theefe and a day theefe is because in the night breaking in it is not knowne whether he came to steale only or to murther but in the day it may easily appeare by his armour and weapons Tostat. Simler Beside in the day he may call for helpe against the theefe which cannot be so well done in the night when he is left without all other remedy but his owne defence Galas Marbach And in the day he may have witnesses of his theft and so convent him before the Magistrate Lippom. 3. The Romane Lawes allow not onely to kill a night theefe but a day theefe also si se tel◠defenderit if he defend himselfe by a weapon Moses Law much disagreeth not for though he that commeth only as a theefe in the day time is not to be killed but to make restitution only yet if he come with weapons as having a murtherers intent now he may be repelled by force even as a night theefe may not now as a theefe but as one which commeth to assault and murther Iunius QUEST V. How it is made lawfull for a private man to kill a theefe Vers. 2. ANd be smitten that he dye no bloud shall be imputed 1. Cajetanus here observeth that this Law simply alloweth not to kill the theefe but if a man smite him in his owne defence not intending to kill him that in this case he shall be free Percussio fuit intenta mors autem per accidens sequnta c. He intended only to smite him but death followed accidentally upon such smiting so also Simler Non probat ut animo occidendi feriatur This Law alloweth not that he should be stricken with a minde to kill him sed indulget affectui c. but it beareth with a mans sudden passion if in defence of himselfe it so fall out that he be killed 2. But this Law seemeth not only to permit one to smite a night theefe but directly to kill him also so it be not with a desire to kill him where he may otherwise escape but to defend him and his from violence which he cannot doe unlesse the theefe be killed Borrh. 3. For seeing both the Law of nature and other Civill lawes doe allow a man to defend himselfe now when the Lawes doe arme a man they seeme publicam personam imponere to impose upon him a publike person so that now he smiteth not as a private man but by authority of the Law and in this case he is tanquam minister vindex Dei as the minister and revenger of God so that he doe it not of a lust and raging desire to be revenged but intending to use a lawfull defence in the safegard of his owne life Gallas And the case is here all one as if a man being set upon by the high way should kill him that maketh the assault upon him Marbach QUEST VI. After what manner the theefe was to be sold. Vers. 3. HE should be sold for his theft c. 1. So was also the Law among the Romans that the debter should be given up in bonds unto his creditor Whereupon Cato was wont to say Fures privates in nexu compedibus vivere publicos in aur◠purpura c. That private theeves lived in chaines and fetters but the publike in gold and purple c. But this custome because it seemed very hard was abrogated by the Law of Arcadius and Honorius Gallas 2. But here it must be considered whether the theefe were an Hebrew or a stranger if an Hebrew how great soever the debt were for his theft he could be but sold over for six yeeres for all Hebrew servants were to goe out free the seventh And as the theft was valued so should he serve more yeeres or fewer But if he were a stranger he might be sold over to serve all his life if the value of the theft were great if it were but small he was but to be sold to serve so many yeeres as might suffice to recompence the theft Tostat. QUEST VII Why the theefe is only punished double with whom the thing stollen is found Vers. 4. HE shall restore double 1. That is one beside that he stole because that is found in his hand which is stollen and so restored Iun. And so must the five oxen be taken which the theefe must make good five with that which was stollen Lippom. 2. Now the reasons why when the thing stollen is found only double must be restored and five or foure-fold when it was killed or sold are these 1. Because he seemeth to be the more cunning theefe when the thing stollen cannot be found 2. Adhuc difficilior ratio in investigando and it is harder to finde out the theft and therefore he is
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
intendeth should not be diminished or empaired but made good to the owner But concerning other goods no such restitution was to be made Gallas Lippom. Contra. They are herein deceived for the former generall Law maketh mention of oxen asses sheepe and generally of whatsoever is lost wherein any fraud may be committed 2. Cajetane and Simlerus give this reason because the other Law speaketh expresly of things stollen out of the keepers or depositories house which the owner made choice of for the sure keeping of his goods and therefore if they be stollen it is upon his owne perill because he made no better choice of the place Now living creatures are not committed to the safe keeping of the place but to the keepers diligence and care so that if they be stollen it is through his default and negligence To the same purpose also Calvine But this reason giveth not satisfaction because in the other Law vers 9. mention is made also of oxen asses sheepe and other living creatures 3. This then is the difference that the former Law speaketh of things committed freely to ones trust without any consideration or reward but here of such things which a man is waged or hired to keepe and therefore in this case he is to make good that which was stollen and not in the other Cujus ratio est quia pro custodia habet mercedem The reason is because he had a reward for his keeping Lyran. Tostat. And this appeareth yet more evidently by Iakobs practice Genes 31.39 Laban required it of his hand whether it were stollen by night or by day because he waged with Iakob to keepe his sheepe Iun. Gallasius objecteth against this example that Iakob there had boasted in vaine quod solus ista damna pertulisset that he alone had borne these losses if it had beene an ordinary thing so to doe Contra. Iakob in that place to purge himselfe of all suspition of fraud or negligence alleageth two things one that whatsoever was torne he brought it not to Laban as the manner was but made it good himselfe and herein Iakob did more than he was bound to doe the other is concerning Labans strictnesse that required of him that which was stollen wherein Laban did according to the common use but yet his hard dealing appeared in exacting of his sonne in Law as of a stranger QUEST XIV How the case of theft differeth from other casualties in matters of trust Vers. 10. IF it dye or be hurt or taken away by enemies c. 1. In these cases the keeper was not to make restitution as if it were stollen the reason is because these casualties could not by humane diligence or foresight be prevented as the other might Simler So Thomas Depositivum poterat perdi dupliciter ex causa inevitabili c. The thing committed to ones trust might be lost two wayes either by a cause inevitable which could not be shunned or prevented and the same either naturall as by disease and death or externall as if it were taken of the enemy or devoured of wild beasts or the cause might be evitabilis such as might be prevented as in stealing 2. But such casualty and death is here understood as is not procured by the deceit and craft of the keeper as if he defrauded the beast of his meat or overwrought it or if it became lame and broken by his smiting and abusing of it for in these cases the keeper is to make good the losse yea though he had nothing at all for the keeping he was to make recompence if any kinde of way he had put his hand to his neighbours good vers 8. much more now seeing he was waged for the keeping and so here he is to take his oath that he hath not put his hand to his neighbours good that is that none of these casualties did befall by his default 3. And by these particular accidents which cannot be prevented other like unexpected and inevitable chances are understood Casus fortuitus non imputatur depositorio A case falling out by chance bindeth not the depositorie or keeper in trust though he have somewhat for the keeping as if the house be burned where he laid up anothers goods or the ship suffer wracke wherein such goods were embarked unlesse one of these three culpa pactum mora interciderit the keepers fault some compact or delay come betweene for if the casualty fall out by the keepers default or negligence or he have covenanted to make good what losse soever or keepe the goods longer in his hand than the owner agreed with him to keepe them in all these cases the keeper is bound to make satisfaction what chance soever happeneth Tostat quaest 7. QUEST XV. Whether it were reasonable that the matter should be put upon the parties oath Vers. 11. AN oath of the Lord c. 1. This kinde of probation to put a man to purge himselfe upon his oath was used when no other witnesses could be produced as it is added in the former verse and no man saw it that is alius à custode none beside the keeper Oleaster so that where other proofe might be had a man at the first should not be put upon his owne purgation Tostat. 2. Neither need it seeme strange that the controversie should be decided by the keepers oath for no man will commit a thing to another in trust unlesse he were first well perswaded of his honesty Suo ergo praejudicio testatus est eum esse virum bonum He therefore testified by his fore-judgement of him in trusting him that he is a good man Calvin and therefore it is no wrong unto him to have the matter tried by his oath whom he trusted 3. Here wee see the lawfull use of an oath to be an end of all controversie and strife as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 6. when no other proofe can be had Tostat. 4. And it is called the oath of Iehovah because they only are to sweare by the name of God Genevens QUEST XVI What was to be done if the thing kept in trust were devoured of some wild beast Vers. 13. IF it be torne in peeces he shall bring it in record 1. One way to testifie that it was torne of wild beasts was to bring a part of the prey recovered out of the ravenous beasts mouth as shepheards sometime used to doe Amos 3.11 Iun. This sense is expressed by the Chalde He shall bring that which is torne for a testimony and the Septuagint He shall bring it to his gate that is shew it to the owner And therefore Iacob herein approved his faithfull service to Laban that used not this liberty to bring that unto him which was torne but made it good himselfe Gen. 31.29 Tostat. 2. Another way to prove it to have beene torne with beasts was to bring proofe by witnesses that saw the ravenous beast to carry away the prey for this sentence hath relation to the former clause vers
10. If no man saw it If then he can bring any that saw it done though he could shew no part it sufficed Lyran. Tostat. 3. And a third way to prove it where the other two faile was by his owne oath as may be gathered vers 11. If no man did see it 〈◊〉 oath of the Lord shall be betweene them c. Lyran. QUEST XVII Of the Law of borrowing and lending when the thing lent is to be made good when not Vers. 14. IF a man borrow ought of his neighbour 1. Here the third case is put of lending and borrowingâ— the two former cases were of committing any thing to one to keepe either without a reward vers 7 8. or for some consideration vers 10 11. Lyran. 2. In the Law of lending and borrowing more is required than in the other for then the borrower receiveth a benefit and therefore tenetur de levissima culpa he is tied to make it good upon the least fault Tostat. But when any thing is committed to ones trust the owner receiveth a benefit and not the keeper 3. This Law seemeth chiefly to be meant of such things as have life which are lent because it followeth if it be hurt or dye and of such other dead things as may be used without the corruption or consumption of them as garments houshold-stuffe and such like but all things which belong to meat and drinke are corrupted and changed in the use as wine bread flesh and cannot be restored againe in the same substance the lending of these things is called 〈◊〉 the possession whereof is transferred to the borrower the lending of the other is called coâ—â—â—datâ—â— when not the possession but the use only of the thing is granted to another of which kinde this Law must be understood Tostat. qu. 8. 4. Now this case is put that if the lender be present when his oxe 〈◊〉 asse or other beast decayeth the borrower shall not make it good for both he is an eye witnesse that his beast was not abused by the user and therefore decayed not by his default Tostat. As also praesent rei sua providere potuit being present he might have prevented the danger himselfe if it were to be helped Gallas But if the owner be not by the borrower shall make restitution because carelesse men commonly use but hardly such things as they borrow in the absence of the owner and therefore this Law meeteth with their unhonest dealing herein 5. Beside other cases are supplied by humane Lawes when the borrower is not bound to make good the thing borrowed as the Civill law is Commodatorius non tenetur decasâ— fertuito nisi se adstrinxerit The borrower is not bound where a chance happeneth unlesse he have bound himselfe Unto which may be added or unlesse it be by his owne default or he keepe the thing borrowed longer than the time appointed Tostat. quaest 8. For the Law is that if a man borrow a certaine thing for a time to use for some purpose though the worke be not finished for the which he borrowed it at that time which is set it must notwithstanding be restored commodatum ad tempus c. a thing lent for a time as to make a woollen web for a yeere Finito anno licèt non completo lanificio restituitur The yeere being ended though the worke be not finished it must be restored And as the borrower is tied to his time so is the lender if he lend any thing for a certaine time which the borrower useth for some businesse the lender cannot require it before that time expired because the borrower might thereby greatly be hindered in his businesse Tostat. QUEST XVIII Why such a strait Law is made for the borrower NOw though it might seeme hard that the borrower was bound to make good the thing borrowed though not lost by his default yet it pleased the Lord thus to ordaine that they might be as carefull to keepe their neighbours things as their owne that they might be the readier one to lend unto another for their necessity this facility and readinesse to lend is by divers Lawes enjoyned 1. That they should be willing to lend though the seventh yeere of remission approched Deut. 15.9 2. That they should take no pawne of their brother for that which he borrowed of such things as he lived by as the upper and nether milstone Deut. 24.6 And if they did to restore it presently As it followeth here vers 26. if they tooke a mans rayment to pledge they should restore it before the sunne set 3. They were commanded not to be too greedy in exacting that which was borrowed as they were not to goe into the house to fetch it but to stand and aske it at the doore Deut. 24.11 12. 4. If the yeere of remission came before the borrower were able to repay that which he had borrowed they were 〈◊〉 â—â—mit all Deut. 15.2 Probabile enim erat◠〈◊〉 illi qui commedè reddere posseut aute septimum annum redderent c. For it was probable that they which could conveniently restore the thing borrowed would doe it before the seventh yeere and not of purpose defraud the creditor and lender See Thomas For this cause therefore that they might be more willing to lend one unto another this Law requireth an exact care in the borrower to preserve that which is lent and to restore it And so the Ciâ—ill law also is Nemo commodatum retineat sub praetextu debiti c. That no man should keepe backe the thing lent pretending debt QUEST XIX Why the hirer is not to make good the thing hired as when it is borrowed Vers. 15. IF it be an hired thing c. 1. Some make this all one Law with the former and take it to be a reason given why the borrower is not to make good that which is lost in the presence of the owner because it came that is was hired for his money So Simler Vatab. Lippom. Oleaster 2. But I rather consent herein to Lyranus Tostatus Gallasius Iunius that make this a divers Law from the former that speaketh of lending freely this of hiring and letting out for money and therefore he that hireth a thing for his money minus tenetur de custodia animalis is lesse bound than the borrower to the safe keeping of the thing so hired Lyran. And the reason is because locatio sit ad utilitatem locatoris the letting out for money is for the profit of him that letteth Tostat. So Cajetane expoundeth well Absque distinctione prasentiae vel absentiae Domini non tenebitur conductor ad solvendum animal casu confractum c. Here without any distinction of the presence or absence of the master the hirer is not bound to make good the beast which is by chance hurt or dead because it came for his hire 3. Yet in this case also tenebitâ—r de dolo vel lata culpa the hirer shall
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
this burning as it appeareth they are by their secret fornications the fruits of their burning lust then according to the Apostles rule it were better for them to marry Concerning the second I say with the Apostle Marriage is honourable among all men c. Heb. 13.4 therefore it is no dishonour nor disparagement to holy Orders 3. But the best answer is that this politike Law of Moses doth not binde us now otherwise than in respect of the generall equity thereof that fornication being a breach of the Morall law should be severely punished in every part and circumstance of the Law it is not necessary now to be kept For as by Moses Law it was left in the power of the maids father whether he thought it fit to give his daughter in marriage to the fornicatour so the Magistrate being the common father of the Common-wealth may in his discretion determine when it is fit for such marriages to proceed when otherwise Simler QUEST XXVIII Why the Law requireth the consent of the father to such marriages Vers. 17. IF her father refuse c. 1. There is great reason that this power should be given unto the father to chuse an husband for his daughter for many times it may so fall out that the fornicatour is such a lewd and ill disposed person that his daughter were but cast away to be bestowed upon such an one And if the fornicatour were necessarily to marry the maid so abused many would make practice of it of purpose by this meanes to get them rich wives Gallas 2. But because sometime if it were wholly left unto the maids father to give his daughter in marriage or to take a portion of money for her dowry some might aske unreasonable summes therefore the Law defineth that upon the refusall of the father the fornicator shall pay money according to the dowry of virgines such as parents of that state and condition used to give with their daughters Tostat. 3. And beside it must be understood that the fathers refusall must be reasonable Si officium piorum parentum praestant c. If they performe the office of good and godly parents For what if he refuse to give his daughter because he would match her into a bad stocke only respecting wealth not religion and piety in this case God is rather to be obeyed than man and the duty to the first table to be preferred before the second Borrhaius 4. Confirmatur hac lege patria potestas in liberos c. The authority of the father is confirmed by this Law toward their children in respect of their marriages that they should not be contracted without their consent Marbach QUEST XXIX Why next to the Law of fornication followeth the Law against witchcraft Vers. 18. THou shalt not suffer a witch to live c. 1. Some thinke that this precept is joyned to the former Quia sortilegia plerunque fiâ—â—t in his quae pertinent ad actum carnis c. Because sorcery is often used in those things which belong to the carnall act Lyran. So also Cajetane Et fortè adjecta est lex ista stupro virginis c. It may be this Law is joyned to the former of whoredome committed with a maid to insinuate that sorcery is much used to set forward venery and uncleane lust 2. Tostatus maketh this the reason of this connexion that as most of the Lawes in the former chapter concerned the ordring and directing partis irascibilis of the angry part of the minde the Lawes hitherto in this chapter partis concupiscibilis of the coveting part of the minde now these following belong to the direction partis rationalis of the reasonable part of the minde the judgement and understanding that it should not be corrupted with evill arts Tostat. qu. 12. 3. But the reason rather is that as fornication of the bodie immediatly before touched is odious before God and man so much more is the spirituall fornication of the soule abominable when any seduced by the devill into witchcraft or any such devillish trade doe forsake God and commit most grosse idolatrie Simler And so hereunto agreeable is that law which followeth in the next verse but one vers 20. that hee should be slaine that offereth unto any gods but to the Lord. QUEST XXX What kinde of witchcraft is here understood A Witch 1. The word is niecashephah which signifieth as Oleaster out of R. Abraham one that changeth any thing before the sight wee call them Juglers which deceive the sight and cast a mist before the eyes The right Latine word is praestigiatrix Iun. Montanus one which by legerdemaine deludeth the eyes 2. But under this kinde by a Synecdoche all other sorts of witchcraft sorcerie inchauntment are forbidden as Hydromantae which use divination by water Aeromanta by the aire Pyromantae by the fire Capniomantae by smoake Alectriomantae by the crowing of Cockes Psycomanta that consult with the soules of the dead Alphitomanta which divine by the inspection of flower Icthuomantae by fish Libanomantae by incense Cheiromantae by the hand Necromantae diviners by the dead Gastromantae which divine and give answers from within out of their bellies and all other of the same devillish profession See hereof before 3. Instance is given here of women and the word is put also in the feminine Quia illud genus maleficii crebriùs reperitur in foemina Because that kinde of sorcerie is oftner found in women Lippom Quia procliviores sunt in hoc scelus ex infirmitate mulieres Because women by the infirmitie of their sex are more prone unto this mischiefe and women are named that no compassion should bee shewed no not unto the weaker sex if they be thus seduced Iun. Nec minus hoc damnantur mares quam foemina Yet men witches are no lesse condemned here than women Gallasius QUEST XXXI Whether love may bee procured by sorcerie BUt because it is the opinion of some as is before shewed qu. 29. that this law of witchcraft is annexed to the former law against fornication because sorcerie may be used to procure unlawfull lust it shall not bee amisse somewhat to touch that point 1. Virgil a great practitioner in such feats sheweth in his 8. Eclog how Daphnis was compelled to come by certaine inchanted love verses where hee often repeateth this verse Ducite ab urbe domum mea carmina ducite Daphnin My verses goe from citie see goe bring yee Daphnis home to mee And Hierome in the life of Hilarion as Tostatus citeth him reporteth how a young man enamoured with a virgin by certaine words and enchaunted figures put under the threshold where the maid was drave her into such fits of raging love that shee tore her haire and whetted her teeth and often used to call the young man by his name this maid thus tormented her parents brought to Hilarion who by his prayers healed her 2. Now then this instigation unto love by sorcerie and diabolicall subtiltie may be
procured three waies One is the ordinarie meanes whereby Satan by externall objects useth to tempt men thereby stirring and provoking their natural lust as David was inflamed at the sight of faire Bathsheba but here needeth no other sorcerie or inchantment than the corrupt inclination of a mans owne affection the devill doth but offer the occasion and shew the object hee draweth not the affection but the corruption of the heart of it selfe is ready to apprehend and lay hold of the object set before it Another way there is whereby the affection is stirred as when the evill spirit entereth and possesseth any with madnesse and phrensie for the time not changing the understanding or will but troubling the vitall spirits and inflaming the blood and so incensing unto lust The third way is when Satan entreth not to disquiet the bodie and trouble the spirits but externally offereth violence transporting and carrying by Gods permission bodies from place to place which is no hard thing for Satan to doe and so hee may bring one to the place where their lover is Tostat. qu. 13.3 But here two things are to be considered 1. That Satan directly cannot worke upon the heart of any in the immediate change or alteration of their affections but hee doth it by meanes either externall in moving by objects or by internall provocation and stirring of carnall lust 2. That he hath not the like power over the servants of God which he exerciseth over carnal men which are his owne vassals he ruleth in the children of disobedience as he listeth as the Apostle saith They are taken of him at his will 2 Tim. 2.26 But the faithfull doe resist him by faith 1 Pet. 5.9 So that his tentations cannot fasten upon them to intangle them further than God shall see it good for the triall of their faith This is made evident by that storie of Iustina the Virgin whom Cyprian then a dissolute young man and given to Art Magicke but afterward a most holy and constant Martyr loved exceedingly and when he was not able to prevaile with her by any allurements hee called for the Devils helpe to bring her unto him who by faith chased the evill spirit away Ex Tostat. qu. 13. QUEST XXXII Whether witches can indeed effect anything and whether they are worthie to bee punished by death NOw further by this sentence of the law which adjudgeth witches worthie of death they are found to be in error which thinke that witchcraft is nothing but nudum phantasma a verie phantasie that sillie women imagine they doe things which indeed they doe not but in their owne conceit and imagination First I will examine the objections which are made in the defence or at the least the excuse of these wicked women and in favour of them for the mitigation of their punishment 1. They say that this law is made de veneficis of such as kill and destroy by secret poisons and noysome herbes it concerneth not witches Answ. 1. Indeed the Septuagint reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine translateth maleficos workers of mischiefe but they are both in error for the Hebrew word mecashephah is put in the feminine whereas they both interpret it by the masculine And the word mecashphim is applied to those which worke by evill spirits and have confederacie with them as Exod. 7.10 it is given to the Egyptian Sorcerers and Magicians 2. The practice of poisoning belongeth to the sixth Commandement Thou shalt not kill whereas witchcraft here forbidden is a breach of the first Table Simler 2. These sillie women can effect nothing they imagine they doe many things but it is only in their owne conceit Answ. 1. True it is that they cannot effect what they would for the Lord restraineth the power of the devill by whom they worke as he did when the Sorcerers attempted to bring forth lice and could not Exo. 8. 2. Yet it cannot bee denied but that they effect many strange things by the operation of the devill as the Magicians of Egypt could turne their rods into the similitude of Serpents and water into the likenesse of blood and the witch at Endor could cause the likenesse of Samuel to appeare which was not in deed Samuel but the devill taking upon him his shape So it is no strange thing by the operation of Satan when they take a mans garments and beat them to cause the bodie of the man to feele the smart Simler 3. And if they did no hurt and could effect nothing why was this law ordained against them God gave no superfluous or unnecessarie lawes to his people nor without great reason 4. Though they should effect nothing yet their wicked desire and endevour thereunto is worthie to bee punished 3. Witches many times doe good and heale men of their infirmities and diseases therefore they deserve no such punishment Answ. 1. Indeed in the Civill law such a decree is extant made by Constantine Qui per incantationes intemperiem aeris grandinis evertit puniendus non est c. Hee which by inchantment turneth away the intemperate season of the aire and weather is not to bee punished But it is no marvell that such things were tolerated then when they came newly from Gentilisme wherein such things were not only suffered but honored and rewarded 2. We have a more perfect rule out of the Scriptures that no such unlawfull meanes are to bee used no not to a good end as to procure health or such like for this cause the Prophet reproved the King of Israel having received hurt by a fall because he sent to the god of Ekron for helpe And to this purpose Augustine saith well as he is cited in the Decrees Si aliquando sanare videntur languidos id Deipermissu sit ut homines probentur c. If they seeme sometime to heale the diseased it is done by Gods permission that men might bee thereby proved c. And againe hee saith Laque◠sunt adversarii mederi non possunt They are the deviles snares they cannot heale 4. Object But the meanes which they use are wholesome and medicinable as herbs and oyntments and therefore herein they are not to bee found fault with Answ. 1. For the most part they use such meanes whereof no naturall or apparent reason can be given as to burne the thatch of the house to cut off some part of the beast bewitched and burne it and such like Concerning such things Augustine giveth a good rule Remedia ligaturae qu◠medicorum disciplina condemnat non adhibenda c. Such remedies and ligatures which the skill of Physicke condemneth are not to be used 2. He saith further Ex traditione malorum angelorum sunt Such remedies had their beginning from the tradition of evill angels therefore hee concludeth that Phylacteria sunt animarum vincula Such Phylacteries things applied to or hung about the necke or other parts are but the snares of the soule
Canaanites haâ—ing not the true worship of God defiled themselves with these abominations for the which the Lord cast them out Levit. 18.24 Simler QUEST XXXV What is meant by sacrificing to other gods 〈…〉 hearing that the two tribes and an halfe beyond Jordan had erected them an Altar they assembled themselves together against them as jealous lest they purposed to bring in a new worship of God Tostat. 5. And not onely they which committed Idolatrie themselves but they which perswaded others were to be put to death Deut. 13.6 7. QUEST XXXVI Whether Idolatrie now is to be punished by death Vers. 20. SHall be slaine 1. The word is charam that simply signifieth not to cut off but to destroy as an anathema thing accursed and bequeathed to destruction Iun. Pelarg. 2. The Interlinearie Glosse expoundeth it of excommunication and of eternall death but both the practise of those times and the like punishment here â—nflicted upon other capitall crimes sheweth that it must be understood of the losse of the temporall life though beside without their great repentance Idolaters deserve also everlasting death Rev. 22.8 3. Some object that now Idolatrie is not to be punished by death but that such rather that are seduced should be instructed in the true worship of God and in the times of the Gospell it is fit more clemencie and mercie should be shewed than under the rigour of the law Answ. 1. Though Idolaters are to be instructed to reforme their error for the salvation of their soules yet this letteth not but that for so great impietie and for the example of others they should worthily suffer the paines of death 2. And now under the Gospel seeing robberie against the common peace and â—reason against the life and safetie of the Prince and State are judged worthy of death Qui majestatem Dei 〈◊〉 dissime violavit tam leve facinus admisisse putabitur shall he which violateth the Majestie of God most impiously be thought to commit so small an offence Gallas 4. But although as Osiander saith the Magistrate non gladio in idololatriam vindicare teneatur be not now bound to take revenge of Idolatrie by the sword for some difference there is betweene Pagane idolatrie and Popish superstitious Imagerie the one being an absolute deniall of all Christianitie the other a mixing therewith of superstitious vanitie yet by the equitie of this Judiciall law which serveth for the strengthening of a morall precept the like sin of idolatrie may justly receive the like punishment As Cyprian repeating that law Deut. 13.12 Si audieris in una ex civitatibus c. If thou hearest of any of the cities c. that are drawne away to serve other gods that such a city should be destroyed thus further inferreth cujus praecepti memor Mattathias which precept Mattathias remembring killed him that approached to the idolatrous Altar to sacrifice c. Then he further addeth Quod si ante adventum Christi circa Deum colendum et idola spernendâ— haec pracepta servata sunt c. Now if these precepts concerning the worship of God and despising of Idols were kept before the comming of Christ quanto magis post adventum Christi servanda sunt How much more ought they to be kept after the comming of Christ seeing he hath not onely exhorted us in words but in deeds Augustine likewise shewing a difference betweene the schisme of the Donatists and Pagane idolatrie thus concludeth Quis vestrum non laudat leges c. Which of you doth not commend the lawes given by the Emperours against the sacrifices of the Pagans illius quippe impietatis capitale supplicium est c. for the punishment of that impietie is capitall 5. R. Salomon thinketh that if a Jew did sweep an Idol Temple velornaret vel alia similia faceret quae sunt praambula c. or adorne it onely and doe other things which are but preambles to Idolatrie he was not to be punished by death but some other wayes Ex Lyrano But if enticing in words to idolatrie were judged worthy of death Deut. 17.5 much more to entice and draw by fact and example as in adorning and beautifying the Temples of Idols QUEST XXXVII Why idolatrie is judged worthy of death NOw the reasons why idolatry was held by Moses law to be worthy of death were these 1. Quia is cultus diabolo exhibetur qui idolorum author est Because that idolatrous worship is giuen unto the devill who is the author of Idols Gallas 2. Aequum est vita privari eos c. It is just that they should be deprived of life which forsake God the author and fountaine of life Simler To leave the worship of God who is the author of life and to worship the devill the author of death and destruction mille mortibus c doth shew himselfe to be worthy of a thousand deaths Gallas 3. Though euery transgression of the law be in some sort a breach of Gods covenant yet idolatry more specially is said to be a transgression of the covenant of God Deut. 17.2 Because men apparently and professedly thereby forsake the profession solemnely made of their service and obedience vnto the Lord Simler 4. And this severe punishment the Lord appointeth for idolatrie quia inter Aegyptios idololatria assiâ—everant because the Israelites had accustomed themselves unto idolatry among the Egyptians in so much that they Moses yet living set up a golden calfe to worship Simler 5. Because of the ready inclination and propension of mans nature unto idolatry it was fit that it should by some severe punishment be restrained Calvin 6. And two things there are which doe exaggerate the nature of a sinne and aggravate the punishment thereof Res in quibâ—s committitur is in quos committitur c. The things wherein they are commited and they against whom they are committed Borrh. Both which concurre here in the sinne of apostasie and idolatrie For what mattâ—â— can be of greater moment than the service and worship of God and what sin more grievous than that which is committed against God QUEST XXXVIII Of kindnesse how to be shewed toward strangers and why Vers. 21. THou shalt not doe injury to a stranger 1. There are two reasone why men are apt to doe wrong unto strangers a both because they are not allied by affinity or consanguinity and therefore no naturall affection is commonly shewed toward them because they are destitute of friends and patrons and therefore lye more open to wrong Tostatus 2. The stranger must neither bee injured in word nor wronged in deed Simler Neither secretly by fraud nor openly by violence neither must they be hindred by any private man nor publikely prejudiced by lawes made against them Tostat. And it is not enough not to doe them wrong but we must help them and doe them what good we can Gallas 3. And this reason is added because they were strangers in Egypt they did feele
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
yeeres and seven yeeres It is as like that they neglected the Sabbath of dayes which was the seventh of weekes which was Pentecost of moneths which was the seventh as well as of yeeres yee the Sabbath of seven yeeres which was the Jubile was also intermitted if the seventh yeere from which they accounted it were not remembred 5. Further if they suffered not the land to rest in the seventh yeere they likewise abandoned other privileges incident to that yeere as the remission of debts the setting free their servants which apparent transgressions nay rebellions should not have beene suffered to slip without some reprehension by the Prophets and correction from God especially under the vertuous Kings of Judah QUEST XXII Why the Law of the Sabbath is so oft repeated Vers. 12. SIx dayes thou shalt labour 1. Some thinke that this precept concerning the observation of the Sabbath is repeated by reason of the former Law concerning the seventh yeere of intermission lest that the Hebrewes because that whole yeere was a time of rest might have taken unto themselves greater liberty in the keeping of the Sabbath Lyran. But this seemeth to be no sufficient reason because although they rested from the workes of husbandry all that yeere yet they attended other â—â—â—â—nesse and labour Tostatus 2. Some thinke that the Sabbath is here mentioned in respect of the civill 〈◊〉 thereof the rest and relaxation of the servants whereas before it was urged as a part of Gods service Gallas Siml 3. But the best reason is that the Law of the Sabbath is repeated because it chiefly concerned the worship of God and therefore so often is this precept iâ—crated as chap. 20. Deut. 5 Exod. 31. 〈◊〉 and in divers other places Tostat. quaest 13. 4. And such respect the Lord hath to the seventh day of rest which he himselfe consecrated by his owne example that according to this rule he did proportion the other festivals as the seventh weeke the seventh moneth the seventh yeere yea in naturall experiments the seventh day is observed as the seventh fouretenth and twenty one are the criticall dayes for diseases as Hippocrates and Galâ—â— have written Hierome 4. The benefit of this day the Lord would have extended to their servants strangers yea to the labouring cartell R. Salomon thinketh that in the next clause Yee shall take heed to all things c. the implements and instruments which are used to any businesse or worke are understood as the sword aâ—e cutting knife and such like that all these things should rest in like manner But this is too curious and beside it were superfluous seeing the men are forbid to labour without whose hands these things cannot stirre or move therefore this clause either is to be referred to the former duties which concerned the Sabbath Lyran. or in generall to their obedience to the whole Law and all the former precepts which were delivered have it Simler QUEST XXIII What manner of mention of strange gods is here forbidden Vers. 14. ANâ— ye shall make no mention of the name of strange gods 1. The Latine Translator readeth Thou shalt not sweare but the word zachar signifieth to remember which is more than to sweare which is too strictly taken they must make no mention non solum jurando sed landandâ— probande abtestande not only in swearing but in praising of them approving protesting by them Lippoman 2. The Jewes doe run into another extreme making this precept too generall they thinke it not lawfull at all once to pronounce the names of the Gentiles Idols but the Prophets which inveighed against them could not but pronounce their names with their mouth the meaning then is nullus loquatur honorabiliter none should make honourable mention of them Cajetane 3. This phrase then is to be understood as S. Paul would not have fornication once named among them Ephes. 5.3 that is that more should be committed none named with desire or delight Simler therefore here only is forbidden â—onesta 〈◊〉 c. non inhonesta cum detestatione c. the comely and reverent mention of their gods not the iâ—reverent mention with detestation 4. Cajetane thus distinguisheth the sentence the first part biddeth ut praeteriti dâ— non memorentur that the former strange gods should not be remembred but be forgotten as though they never had beene the other part neither shall it be heard out of thy mouth sheweth ut de moderuis diis nemo honorabiliter loquatur and of the gods present none should speake honourably But indeed the meaning is that generally the memory of all false gods should be extinguished as they 〈◊〉 commanded to abolish the very names of them Deut. 12.3 that neither in their oathes nor in their familiar talke they should revive the memory of them see the practice thereof Psalm 16.4 Neither will make mention of their names within my lips So the Lord saith by his Prophet I will take away the 〈◊〉 of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall be no more remembred by their names Hos. 2.17 Iun. 5. By the name of strange gods are here understood all which the Heathen worshipped whether by images or without whether things in heaven in the earth or under the earth which are called strange gods not because they are gods at all but so reputed in the opinion of their idolatrous worshippers and strange they were because such were worshipped onely of strange nations and not of the people of God Toâ—tat quaest 13. QUEST XXIV Why it is forbidden to sweare by the name of strange gods Vers. 13. YE shall make no mention of the name of other gods c. 1. If it be unlawfull to make any honourable mention at all of the names of strange gods no not in usuall talke much lesse is it lawfull to sweare by them because in taking of an oath invocatur Deus tanquam testis veritatio God is called upon as a witnesse of the truth so to sweare by the name of God is actus â—â—reiae an act of divine worship and therefore it cannot be given unto any other beside God and againe one Idols because they are false gods non possunt esse testes veritatis cannot be witnesses of the truth Lyran. 2. 〈◊〉 observeth here this difference betweene the Law and the Gospell there per nomen Dei jurure non 〈◊〉 they are not forbidden to sweare by the name of God Evangelica veritat non recipit juramentum But the Evangelicall truth admitteth no oath because the speech of a faithfull man ought to be in stead of an oath c. He thinketh that by this Law the Hebrewes had liberty given them to sweare at their pleasure so they did sweare only by the name of God But I rather here approve Calvins annotation Non incitâ—t Deus pâ—pâ—lâ—â— ad jurandi licentiam c. God doth not hereby incite his people to sweâ—ing or give them liberty to sweare sed ubi opus fuerit vel necessitat
justa ratio id postaâ—â—bit but where need it and necessary or just cause doe so require c. otherwise the Law doth forbid all unlawfull swearing as well as the Gospell 3. And the reason why they ought not to sweare by strange gods is ne frequenti juramento iâ—â—â—cantur ad cultâ—â—◠〈◊〉 c. lest that by often swearing they be induced to worship them Glos. interliâ—â—â—â— 4. And as an Hebrew then and so a Christian now was not himselfe so neither were they to compell a Gentile to sweare by them yet as Augustine determineth it is lawfull for a Christian recipere ab eo juramentum in Deo suo c. to receive an oath of a Gentile by his god to confirme some covenant or contract se Gentilis obtularis se facturum if the Gentile doe of himselfe offer it Lyran Tostat. QUEST XXV Whether a Christian may compell a Iew to sweare by his Thorah which containeth the five bookes of Moses VPon this occasion how farre a Christian may compell another of a contrary religion to sweare as a Jew or Turke Tostatus bringeth in divers questions which it shall not be amisse here briefly to touch as first whereas it is an usuall thing with the Jewes at this day to sweare upon their Thorah which is nothing else but a volume containing the five bookes of Moses yet bound up in silke and laid up very curiously in their Synagogue whereout they use to read the lectures of the Law the question is whether it be lawfull for a Christian Judge to urge a Jew to take his oath upon his Thorah for upon the Gospels he will rather dye than take an oath For the resolution of this doubt divers things are to be weighed and considered 1. That there is great difference betweene the Idols and 〈◊〉 gods of the Heathen and the Jewes Thorah for this 〈◊〉 a part of Gods word and containeth nothing but the truth and it is all one as if the Jew did lay his hand upon the Pentateuch or five bookes of Moses as any Christian may take his oath upon the Gospels or any other part of Gods word 2. And like as a Christian laying his hand upon the Gospels doth not 〈◊〉 by the bookâ— for 〈◊〉 were unlawfull in giving the honour due to the Creator unto a creature but hath relation unto God whose verity and truth is contained in that booke So a Jew swearing upon his Thorah yet sweareth by God the Author of the Law and in so doing sinneth not 3. Yet it may so fall out that a Jew may sinne in swearing upon his Thorah as having an opinion that all the contents of that booke as namely the ceremonials are yet in force which are abolished in Christ and yet the Judge may not sinne in requiring the Jew to sweare upon his Thorah for he doth not consider of those things quae sunt in voluntate agentis sed de ipso actis which are in the minde and intent of the doer but of the act it selfe therefore the act of it selfe being lawfull a Jew may be required to doe it Sic Tostat. qu. 14. QUEST XXVI Whether a Iew may be urged to sweare in the name of Christ. BUt as the Jew may be urged to sweare upon his Thorah which they hold to be a booke of truth as Christians doe yet the case is not alike if a Christian should compell a Jew to sweare in the name of Christ for although Christ be in deed and in truth very God yet the Jewes hold him to be worse than any Idoll and therefore the Jew in taking such an oath should doe against his conscience and consequently commit a great sinne or if a Jew should require a Christian to sweare by the name of Christ whom he holdeth to be no God nor yet a good man therein the Jew should also sinne against his conscience for it skilleth not a thing to be so or so indeed dum aliter concipiatur as long as a man otherwise conceiveth and is perswaded in his minde Tostat. qu. 15. QUEST XXVII Whether a Saracene may be urged to sweare upon the Gospels or in the name of Christ. NOw although a Jew cannot be compelled without sinne to sweare in the name of Christ whom he holdeth worse than an Idoll or upon the Gospels which they thinke containe nothing but fables yet the reason standeth otherwise for a Saracene or Turke he may be required to sweare in the name of Christ or upon the Gospels And the reason is because the Saracens have a good opinion of Christ and beleeve that he was sent of God and that he was a great Prophet and a good man and for the most part they doe assent unto the Gospels and beleeve that Christ spake the truth And therefore they in taking such an oath doe not against their conscience and therein sinne not Now if it be objected that the Saracens differ more from the Christians than the Jewes and therefore can no more lawfully take an oath in the name of Christ than the Jewes the answer is that although the Jewes consent with the Christians touching the canonicall bookes of the old Testament as the Saracens doe not yet as touching Christ they doe totally dissent from the Christians and so doe not the Saracens Tostat. qu. 17. QUEST XXVIII Whether a Christian may sweare upon the Iewes Thora BUt it hath beene before shewed that a Jew may be without sinne urged to sweare upon his Thora which is nothing but the Pentateuch containing the five bookes of Moses another question is moved whether a Christian may safely take his oath upon the Jewes Thora And that it is not lawfull so to doe it may be thus objected 1. It is a sinne Iudaizare to Iudaize to doe as the Jewes doe as to be circumcised to observe the Jewish Sabbath and such like But to sweare upon the Thora is to Iudaize that is to doe as the Jewes doe Ergo c. Answ. 1. To Iudaize is not simply to doe that which the Jewes doe but that which they alone doe and none other as to beleeve that which they only beleeve as that the ceremonies of the Law are still in force or to doe that which they only doe as to be circumcised and to abstaine from certaine kinde of meats as Saint Paul chargeth Saint Peter that he compelled the Gentiles Iudaizare to Iudaize concerning their meats for he did eat with the Gentiles before the Jewes came and afterward he withdrew himselfe from them otherwise to beleeve as the Jewes and others also beleeve and to doe likewise as to hold the world to have beene created the Israelites to have beene delivered and all other things in the Scriptures to be true as they are there set downe this is not to Iudaize 2. So because the Thora which is the Pentateuch is not only received of the Jewes but of the beleeving Gentiles and the truth of the Law we subscribe unto as well as the
institution in Egypt every one killed it in his owne house that was to be done then because they were to strike the bloud upon the doore postes that it might be a signe of their deliverance from the plague while the Angell passed over to smite the Egyptians chap. 12.23 but afterward they were required to sacrifice the Passeover in the place which the Lord should chuse Deut. 16.2 2. Neither was it enough to bring the Passeover up to that place where the Tabernacle was but they were to present it at the doore of the Tabernacle where the Passeover was to be killed as other sacrifices and the bloud to be powred by the Altar 1. Because this was the generall Law for all sacrifices Levit. 17.3 but the Passeover was a sacrifice as here the Lord calleth it my sacrifice and Numb 9.13 he that was negligent to keepe the Passeover should be cut off from his people and this reason is yeelded thereof Because he brought not the offering of the Lord in due season 2. And againe it had beene to small purpose to enjoyne the people to come to the place of the Sanctuary with their Passeover to that end that they should observe no other rites and ceremonies therein than were appointed by the Law if every one might have killed the Passeover in his owne house for then they might have followed what rites they thought good Tostat. quaest 27. QUEST XLI Wherefore they were to eat only unleavened bread in the Passeover THou shalt not offer the blond with leavened bread c. 1. The unleavened bread which they were commanded to eat for seven dayes together is called the bread of tribulation Deut. 16.3 that as it is an unpleasant and unsavoury bread of it selfe so it should call to their remembrance the affliction which they endured in Egypt and consequently their deliverance from the same Simler Calvin 2. But to us it hath this signification first it forbiddeth quicquam Aegyptiacae doctrina divinis rebus admisceri c. that any Egyptiacall or false doctrine should be mingled with divine things Theodoret. As our blessed Saviour in this sense chargeth his Apostles to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisies Mark 8. Secondly the leaven signifieth malitiae nequitiae amaritudinem the bitternesse of malice and wickednesse Rabanus which we must seeke to purge forth as S. Paul applieth it 1 Cor. 5. QUEST XLII What first fruits are here mentioned in this Law Vers. 19. THe first of the first fruits of thy land 1. Some thinke that this Law is understood of the solemne oblation of the first fruits which were of three sorts novarum frugum of their new corne in the feast of the Passeover panum de novis frugibus pistorum of bread baked of the new corne at Pentecost novorum fructuum and of the new fruit as of wine and oile in the feast of Tabernacles But this solemne oblation of the first fruits was before rehearsed in particular vers 15 16. 2. It is rather therefore meant of those first fruits which every man was bound to offer unto the Lord in particular as the first fruits of their trees Levit. 19.25 Iun. The first fruit of their dowe Numb 15.21 and of other things which was to this end to acknowledge their thankfulnesse unto God for the fruits of the land which he had given them Deut. 26.10 Simler 3. Lyranus addeth further that these first fruits are specially understood of the seventh yeere when they did not sow any thing that because mention is made before onely of the first fruits of their labours vers 16. this is added that even they were to give the first fruits of that which the earth brought forth of it selfe in the seventh yeere without their labour that first in common they should offer the first fruits to the Priests before any did gather of them to their owne use which they were the rather to doe in the seventh yeere because those fruits were given them without their labour they were only of Gods sending and for that in that yeere they could not pay any tithes unto the Levices for the tenth part could not be set out from the nine parts because they did not gather the fruits of the earth together as in other yeeres but as they needed them and the remainder was for the beasts of the field therefore they could not gosse at the tenth and the tenth was due from the owner where he tooke the nine parts to himselfe but here the owner tooke no more than another the fruits of the seventh yeere were common unto all Tostat. qu. 29. QUEST XLIII What it is to seeth a kid in the mothers milke Vers. 19. THou shalt not seeth a kid in his mothers milke 1. Some thinke the meaning of this Law is that they should not offer a sucking kid in sacrifice while it was yet tender and under the damme Pellican But this cannot be the sense for after seven dayes it was lawfull to take any thing from the damme and sacrifice it Exod. 22.30 And we reade that Samuel offered in sacrifice a sucking lambe 1 Sam. 8. Beside the flesh of kids when they are weaned are not so sweet and pleasant as before Simler 2. Some interpret this Law by that Levit. 22.28 that they should not kill the cow and ewe and the young both in one day and Deut. 22.6 that they should not take the dam with the young Theodoret. Vatab. But it is a divers thing to seeth the kid in the dammes milke and to seeth or kill the kid with the damme together Pelarg. Oleaster 3. Some doe understand this Law according to the letter that they should not indeed dresse and seeth a kid in the dammes milke and they give this reason because it seemeth to be a cruell thing si lac matris quod datum ei est pro nutrimento adhibeatur ad consumptionem if the milke of the damme which is given for nourishment should be used to waste and consume it Thomas Lyrâ—â—m Others adde this reason Prohibetur ritus Idololatrarum lixantium 〈◊〉 in laste matris The rite and fashion of Idolaters is forbidden which seeth the kid in the dammes milke Cajetane And the Hebrewes affirme that the Ismaelites had such an use to seeth kids in the dammes milke for more delicacie sake Simler The Gentiles also used to sacrifice a kid sod in the mothers milke to the 〈◊〉 of the fields that they might have plenty Tostat. And this is the speciall reason which they insist upon that follow this sense to take it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the words and letter because it is thrice repeated in the same phrase in this place and Exod. 34.26 and Deut. 14.21 Pelarg. Simler and Calvin seemeth to approve the same sense Contra. But against this exposition it may be thus objected 1. The word bashal here used signifieth as well to rost as seeth as Deut. 16.7 Thou shalt rost the paschall Lambe for it was
In what forme the Lord appeared like consuming fire vers 17. 4. How long Moses stayed in the mount 40. dayes and 40. nights vers 18. 2. The divers readings Vers. 1. And he said to Moses I.V.A.P. cum cater better than 〈◊〉 he had said G. as though this wâ—â—y transposed and God had said so before unto Moses which is shewed to be otherwise qu. 1. following Vers. 5. They offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings unto the Lord of bullocks I.V.A.P. cum cater better than offered burnt offerings of beeves c. G. for the word translated beeves is the last in the verse or they offered c. twelve calves L. twelve is not in the originall Vers. 8. Concerning all these words or sayings I.B. cum cater all these things B.G. but they were words or sayings which were rehearsed out of the booke Vers. 10. At a pavement-worke I. or stone-worke of Saphir V. better than a worke of Saphir B.G. for here libâ—ath stone is omitted or brickworke of Saphir S A. libâ—ath signifieth here stone rather than bricke or a worke of the stone Saphir P.L. or a worke of a precious stone C. a worke of Saphir H. that is a stone-worke such as they use in pavings Vers. 11. Vpon the selected or choice of the children of Israel I.V.A.S. that is Princes or Nobles B.G. C.P. better than upon those which went backe of the children of Israel â—etzile separated selected 2. Questions explaned QUEST I. Whether this Chapter be transposed in part or in whole Vers. 1. NOw he had said to Moses 1. The opinion of the Hebrewes is that this Chapter is transposed with the three Chapters before going which all they thinke to have beene done and Moses to have received the former Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes before the Morall law was delivered in mount Sinai So that they thinke these things to have beene done in this order that upon the first day of the third moneth the whole host came to the bottome of mount Sinai and that Moses then went up and received the Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes as they are expressed in the 21 22 23. Chapters and that he descended upon the fourth day and confirmed the covenant as is here in this Chapter declared and so on the fifth day hee went up againe with Aaron Nadab and Abihu and on the sixth day the trumpe sounded and then the Law was delivered Ex Lyranâ— Contra. But this transposing of the story cannot be admitted for these reasons 1. It is not like that the people received the Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes before they were washed and purged or that Moses would sprinkle them with the bloud of the sacrifice being uncleane But if on the fourth day they received the Lawes they were not yet cleansed for three dayes before the Morall law was given which was as they say on the sixth day they were commanded by Moses to sanctifie themselves and to wash their clothes chap. 19. 2. The Ceremoniall and Judiciall lawes doe depend upon the Morall law and are but particular determinations of the generall precepts of the Morall law which precepts being grounded upon the Law of nature are more evident than any other positive Lawes whatsoever and the Morall law was to remaine and continue for ever so were not the other positive Lawes whether ceremoniall or judiciall therefore it is most like that the Morall law was given first and the other after and not the judicials and ceremonials first Tostat. 3. Againe after the people had heard the Lords terrible voice thundering out the Law they were afraid and desired that Moses might speake unto them from God chap. 20. therefore it is evident that as yet before the Morall law was delivered Moses had not received the other Lawes from God to give unto the people But God spake unto them himselfe Lyranus 2. And as the opinion of the Hebrewes cannot stand that hold all these Chapters to be transposed upon the former reasons so neither can their assertion be received that admit no transposition here at all as Cajetane thinketh that at this time Moses was with God and yet not come downe out of the mount but that the Lord in effect said thus much unto him After thou art gone downe and hast published these Lawes to the people then come thou up againe with Aaron c. So also Lyranus But it is more like that Moses received this commandement to goe up againe after he had published the Lawes and performed all those ceremonies which are rehearsed from verse 3. to verse 9. for Moses was now come downe when the Lord bad him come up Quomodo enim praecipitur ascendere qui cum eo est in monte c. How is he bid to ascend who was already in the mount Hugo de S. Victor And againe seeing it is said vers 9. Then went up Moses and Aaron it is like that then Moses received that commandement to goe up neque enim accâ—ssisset Moses non vocatus for Moses would not have gone up unto God not being called the two first verses then must needs be transposed 3. R. Abraham thinketh that the Chapters before going are not transposed but placed in their right order as how Moses remained before the Lord after the Morall law was given and received the Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes following and afterward rehearsed them unto the people and performed the other ceremonies here set downe from verse 3. to verse 9. But this commandement that Moses should come up with Aaron Nadab and Abihu which is given to Moses vers 1 2. and executed afterward vers 9. he thinketh to be transposed and this to be done before the Morall law was delivered chap. 20. So also Gallasius Contra. But this cannot be admitted 1. Because before the Morall law was pronounced by the Lord chap. 20. Moses is bid to come and Aaron only with him chap. 19.24 But here Nadab and Abihu and the 70. Elders he is charged to take with him vers 1 2. 2. Immediatly after Moses had sacrificed and sprinkled the bloud he went up with Aaron Nadab and Abihu vers 9. This then was not done before the giving of the Law Tostatus 4. Wherefore the more probable opinion is that neither the Chapters before going are transposed nor yet this Chapter wholly nor yet that there is no transposition at all But the two first verses only which in order are to be joyned with the 9. verse are set out of their place And that first Moses came downe and published the Lawes to the people as the Lord commanded him to doe though it be omitted for without Gods commandement hee would doe nothing his factiâ— and these things being done then he was bid to come up with Aaron Nadab and Abihu c. Tostat. Iun. Oleast Simler QUEST II. What thâ—se 70. Elders were Vers. 1. ANd seventy of the Elders 1. Some thinke that these were those seventy Elders which afterward tooke part of the
forth in the 12. and 13. chapters and his reason is because it is called the booke of the covenant but the covenant betweene God and his people pracipuâ— consistit in dâ—câ—m praceptis chiefly consisteth in the ten Commandements Contra. The covenant here made with the people was that speciall bond wherewith the Israelites were obliged and tied unto God more than any people beside and this was the bond of the Ceremoniall and Judiciall lawes for the Morall law is grounded upon the Law of Nature and all people are bound to obey it so that if the Israelites respâ—erent pracepta ceremonialiâ— judicialia nullum foedus magis cum eis esset quà m cum aliis gentibus should have refused the ceremoniall and judiciall precepts there had beene no more covenant made with them than with other nations Tostat. Therefore it is not necessary to comprehend in this place under this covenant the Morall law but such peculiar precepts as onely concerned Israel 3. Wherefore it is more probable that those words of God which Moses did write were only the Judiciall and Ceremoniall lawes rehearsed in the three former chapters and not the ten Commandements of the Morall law for these reasons 1. Moses writeth the same Lawes which he had rehearsed vers 3. But he rehearsed only the Judicials and Ceremonials which he had received of God and were not yet published he needed not rehearse the ten Commandements which the Lord had pronounced with his owne mouth therefore them he writ not Marbaâ—h 2. The ten Commandements were first written by the Lord himselfe in two tables of stone as the Lord himselfe telleth Moses vers 12. therefore seeing the Lord purposed to give the Morall law written with his owne hand it is not like that he would command Moses to write it before for Moses did not write this booke of his owne minde but by the Lords direction Lippom. Pellican Gloss. interlin and Augustine quaest 89. QUEST VII Whether Moses rose up the next morning Vers. 4. ANd he rose up early 1. Cajetane thinketh that this was not the next morning because it is not said the next morning and that some time came betweene the publishing of the lawes and this morning wherein Moses wrote the said Lawes But Cajetanes reason is but weake for Gen. 19.27 it is said Abraham rose up in the morning which was the next morning though it be not so expressed and the like may be found in other places And the Lawes which Moses did write might be finished in one day so that there is no necessity to imagine any longer time to come betweene 2. Rupertus thinketh that this morning was upon the 50. day when the Law was delivered But that is not like for that morning there was thunder and lightning and the sound of a trumpe chap. 19.16 so that all the people was afraid it was then no time to build an Altar or to doe those other things here described they were all attent then and prepared to heare the Lord. Beside Rupertus must hold this chapter wholly to be transposed to maintaine his opinion which is shewed before qu. 1. not to be so 3. Therefore this is like to have beene the very next morning as thinketh R. Salomon Lyranus and Tostatus and Gallasius useth this reason Verisimilius est Moseâ—â— haâ—d diâ— distulisse haue gratiarum actionem It is more like that Moses would not long deferre this thanksgiving c. QUEST VIII Whether there were 12. pillars beside the Altar Vers. 4. ANd set up an Altar and twelve pillars c. 1. Some thinke that Moses erected twelve Altars But beside that this is against the letter of the text which speaketh but of an Altar Lyranus It had beene dangerous to have made so many Altars to sacrifice upon which might have beene an occasion to draw the people to superstition as though they were not to sacrifice all to the same God Tostat. 2. Some thinke that this Altar was set up upon twelve stones which were taken according to the number of the twelve tribes Cajetan Ferus As Elias built an Altar of 12. stones representing the 12. tribes 1 King 18.20 Lyran. Osiander And Ioshua made an Altar of 12. stones which were brought out of Jordan Iosh. 4. And the signification hereof was this that the sacrifice made upon that Altar consisting of 12. stones was for the benefit of the 12. tribes and that as those 12. stones made but one Altar so the 12. tribes belonged unto one God Tostat. Contra. 1. The word used in those two places given in instance is abaâ—iâ—â— which signifieth stones which were gathered together to make one Altar or heape but here the word is mâ—â—zabah which is a pillar so called à standâ— because it standeth alone and is erected and set up as a monument neither is it said here that Moses made an Altar of these pillars as Elias did of those stones 2. And againe the signification is more full to erect an Altar by it selfe which was a type of Christ our true Altar and the pillars by themselves that so both the parties Christ on the one part and the people on the other here contracting and making a covenant might be the better thereby prefigured Iun. 3. Therefore because they are said to be 12. pillars not stones it is like they were set up apart as more conspicuous monuments representing the 12. Tribes And this is more consonant to the text that saith Moses set up an Altar and 12. pillars which the sense will give to be beside the Altar especially seeing the perfect distinction athuah commeth betweene and divideth the sentences Iun. Vátab 4. And there were foure kindes of these pillars 1. Some served as memorials of the death instead of their sepulchers as Iacob erected a pillar for Rachel Genes 35. 2. Some pillars served for Altars as Iacob set up such an one in Bethel and powred drinke offerings upon it Genes 35.16 3. Some were superstitious pillars consecrated to Idols such the Israelites were forbidden to make Levit. 26.1 4. Some pillars were used as monuments and remembrances of some notable thing done in that place where they were pitched as was the pillar which Iacob erected Genes 28.18 Tostat. quaest 5. And of this sort was this pillar QUEST IX Whether the names of the Tribes were written in these stones Vers. 4. TWelve pillars 1. Some thinke that the names of the 12. Tribes were graven in these pillars Borrh. And this opinion may be thought more probable both because a better remembrance might have beene kept by this meanes in the writing of their names than otherwise and afterward the names of the 12. Tribes were graven both in the two onyx-stones which the high Priest did beare in his Ephod upon his shoulder six in one stone and six in another and in the 12. precious stones inclosed in the breast plate Contra. 1. The memoriall of this solemne sacrifice might very well be kept only by the sight of
the fire as the place of the sacrifices was preserved from flies Lippoman So also Oleaster But we need not run unto miracles where other probable reasons may be yeelded 2. Beda answereth out of Hierome that Altaris ligna quae de lignis paradisi sunt non cremantur igne vicino That the wood of the Altar which are of the wood of Paradise were not burned by the fire which was neere it c. And Beda himselfe telleth of a certaine kinde of wood which quanto plus arserit tanto mundius inveniatur c. the which the more it burneth the more pure it is But as Hugo de S. Victor reasoneth if the Altar were made of a wood that could not be consumed with fire Quid opus fuerit areis laminis c. What needed it to be covered with brasen plates And yet it must be confessed that seeing the fire never went out upon the Altar and so the brasse without being continually hot must needs also heat the wood within that there was some extraordinary thing in it as the fire of the Altar burned still neither was quenched with any raine is Tostatus observeth qu. 9. 3. Lyranus thinketh that as the wood of Shittim were imputribilia sic incremabilia was not apt to corrupt so not easie to be burned and consumed But it is against the nature of wood not to yeeld unto the fire 4. Tostatus with others thinke that the Altar being hollow was filled up in the middest with earth and upon the earth was the fire made which came not neere the sides the Altar being five cubits broad and as many long qu. 4. But if the Altar had beene so stopt with earth there should have beene no place for the grate which was put within 5. Therefore Iosephus opinion is better Cratem pro faculo suppositam habens That it had a grate put above in stead of an earth in illo cribro composita ligna ardebant the wood was laid in order upon that grate and so burned which grate was aâ—l of brasse Adde hereunto that the Altar was covered with thicke plates of the brasse to defend the heat And the widenesse and length of it was such as that the fire needed not come neere the sides 6. Tostatus thinketh that it was not totum coapertum aere all the altar was not covered with brasse but only midway so farre as the grate went But Montanus saith better Totum erat laminis aereis obductum That it was all covered with plates of brasse both within and without and this is more agreeable to the text that saith Thou shalt cover it with brasse which being set downe without any limitation sheweth that all the Altar was so covered QUEST III. Whether the Altar were made of boords ANd whereas it is appointed to be made of Shittim wood 1. Cajetane thinketh that it was not made of boords of Shittim wood nay he saith Nullae concurrebant tabula There went no tables to the making of the Altar And whereas it is said vers 8. Thou shalt make it hollow of boords Cajetane interpreteth it vacuum tabularum void of boords quite contrary and Oleaster misliketh not that sense 2. But the better reading is cavum tabularum hollow with boords or hollow of boords as reade Chald. Iun. Vatab. Pagnin and the Septuag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a boorded hollow shalt thou make it it was therefore canuminstar arcae hollow like a chest without bottome or cover Osiander and because the Altar was most holy and sanctified whatsoever was offered upon it as our blessed Saviour saith Yee fooles and blind whether is greater the offering or the Altar which sanctifieth the offering it is like it was made close thaâ— it might be more secret and so the more reverenced QUEST IV. How this place agreeth with that Exod. 20.25 where the Altar is prescribed to be made of earth or unwrought stone Vers. 1. OF Shittim wood This should seeme to be contrary to that Law Exod. 24.25 where the Altar is commanded to be made of earth or unhewen stone how then could it be made of wood 1. Some answer that God which made that Law might also abrogate it Tostat. qu. 4. But it is not like that God would give unto Moses contrary Lawes almost at the same time 2. Tostatus hath another answer that the end and scope of that Law is here kept for they were commanded to make an Altar of earth or of rough stone ne fierent in altari aliquae imagines that there should be no images made in the Altar lest it might have beene an occasion of idolatry the intent of the same Law is here kept because this Altar was made plaine without any figure or portraiture But where a Law is made not onely the scope and intent of the Law but the letter is to be kept and beside the reason there given of the Law why they should use unwrought stones is this If thou lift up thy toole upon them thou hast polluted them vers 25. The same reason as well restraineth the lifting up of the toole upon wood as well as stone 3. Cajetane answereth that in the other Law altaris nomine intelligitur corpus altaris by the name of the Altar is understood the body of the Altar upon the which the fire was made But here by the Altar is understood id quod ambit altare that which compasseth the Altar c. and was but as the walles and sides of it and within it was filled up with earth whereupon the fire was laid Tostat. But here the whole Altar is described with the hearth and all which was the grate as afterward shall be shewed and beside it was hollow therefore not filled up 4. Therefore Iunius his solution is best and Gallasius hath the same Illatumultuaria esse voluit quia temporaria c. He speaketh there of Altars to be made upon the sudden upon some extraordinary occasion which were but for a time and so were to be dissolved againe such as Samuel and Elias made but this Altar was to remaine and continue QUEST V. What the hornes of the Altar were and to what use Vers. 2. THou shalt make unto it hornes c. 1. Lippoman thinketh that these were not made indeed after the similitude of the hornes of bullocks or goats but they were certaine shining ornaments that came out in the foure corners as Moses had not hornes where the same word is used but his face shined so he thinketh that these commings out in the corners of the Altar were only for ornament But it shall appeare afterward that there was a necessary use of them neither is there any necessity here to depart from the literall sense of the word 2. Some thinke that these foure hornes were certaine little pillars that went up streight in the corners they were not crooked like hornes R. Salomon Osiander But why then should they be called hornes if they had not any such likenesse or
should be there consecrated where the chiefe of their service and ministerie was to be executed 3. And there betweene the doore and the Altar was the brasen Laver where Aaron and the Priests were to wash themselves before they put on the holy garments thither therefore are they called because there they were to be washed with water Tostat. qu. 1. QUEST V. Why Aaron and the rest are washed and how Vers. 4. ANd wash them with water 1. Not with common or every water but with that which was in the brasen Laver chap. 30.18 Iun. 2. But here we must consider that alwayes the order of time is not set downe in Scripture in setting downe the storie of such things as were done for the brasen Laver wherein they were to be washed is afterward appointed to bee made chap. 30. Tostat. quast 2. 3. They were washed not onely their hands and feet as in their daily ministerie chap. 40.33 but in their whole bodie as thinketh Rab. Salomon because their first consecration required a more solemne oblation and washing than their daily ministration And like as the oyle was powred upon Aarons head but ran downe along upon his beard and other parts so it is like the water was applied to his whole bodie Lyran. Tostat. And this washing was a figure of Christs baptisme who went into the water when he was baptised Matth. 3. Simler 4. It was fit they should be washed before they put on the holy garments both for decencie and comelinesse that the soile of their bodie might be cleansed before they applied the precious and glorious apparell and for signification that they might thereby be admonished to cleanse and purge themselves from their sins and corruptions QUEST VI. Of the Priestly apparell which Aaron put on and why the girdle is omitted Vers. 5. PVt upon Aaron the tunicle c. 1. Tostatus thinketh that this was the linen garment which was common to Aaron and the inferiour Priests But it is shewed before chap. 28.39 that the high Priests linen coat was embroidered and so were not the other Priests linen coats 2. Tostatus also hath another conceit that the high Priest did put on this linen coat supervestes communes upon his common wearing apparell qu. 2. But that is not like for Aaron put off his cloaths when he was washed and then he is immediatly cloathed with his Priestly apparell 3. Because no mention is here made of the girdle Cajetan thinketh that cingulum erat commune pontifici sacerdotibus that there was one common girdle for the high Priest and the rest and therefore afterward vers 9. mention is made once for all of the girdles of the Priests But it is evident chap. 28.39 that the high Priests girdle was embroidered of needle worke whereas the common girdles were onely of linen Levit. 16.4 This rather is to be supplied out of Levit. 8.8 where he is girded with a girdle upon his coat and so Oleaster thinketh well that Aaron hath seven ornaments put upon him beside the linen breeches the tunicle the robe the Ephod the pectorall the girdle the miter and golden crowne 4. And whereas it is said and shall cleanse them with the broidered gard of the Ephod Tostatus following Iosephus thinketh that this was the girdle wherewith his garments were girded all together qu. 2. whereas it was the broidered gard which was in the nether part of the Ephod the laps whereof below did gird the Priest in the waste as a girdle Iun. Lippoman Simler Vatab. QUEST VII How Aaron was anointed and with what Vers. 7. ANd thou shalt take the anointing oyle 1. Though it be called oile yet was it more than oile for it was a precious ointment made of Rosin Myrrh Cinamom and other things as it is prescribed chap. 30. Iun. 2. The high Priest was anointed in his head but it is not expressed how the inferiour Priests were anointed it is like but in their hands though Tostatus useth but a slender conjecture to prove it because now their Bishops use to be anointed in the head the inferiour Priests but in the hands to signifie that the one receive a superioritie in their consecration the other but a kinde of service and ministerie for what warrant have they to use the Jewish rites and ceremonies under the Gospell in their consecrations 3. Now because it would seeme an uncomely thing that all Aarons garments should be besmeared with this ointment if it had beene powred on Aarons head R. Salomon thinketh that Moses tooke his finger and dipped it in the oile and so strake it on Aarons forehead But the text is against his conceit both in this place because it is said and shalt powre it upon his head and likewise Psal. 133. where it is expressed that the ointment ran downe upon Aarons beard and so to the skirts of his cloathing Tostat. qu. 2. QUEST VIII How the ordinance of the Priesthood is said to be perpetuall Vers. 9. THe Priests office shall be theirs for a perpetuall law 1. Whereas the like phrase is used chap. 28.43 This shall be a law for ever c. which some restraine unto the particular precept of wearing linen breeches because the law of comelinesse and decencie is perpetuall here it is evident that it is generally meant of the exercising and execution of the whole Priesthood Calvin 2. Therefore this ordinance is said to be eternall and perpetuall in respect of the subject because it was to continue toto tempore quo durarent sacrificia all the time that the sacrifices were to continue the sacrifices then in Christ being determined for the Jewes themselves at this day forbeare to sacrifice nay they would chuse rather to die than offer sacrifice out of the land of Canaan and especially because they have no Tabernacle nor Temple where onely by the law they were to sacrifice the law of the Priesthood must also cease the sacrifices wherein the Priesthood was exercised being abolished Tostat. cap. 28. qu. 21. 3. Augustine giveth another reason why it is called perpetuall quia res significaret aeternas because it signified eternall things So also Gloss. interlin it is so called quia perpetuam futuram id est Christianam religionem significabat because it signified the Christian religion which should be perpetuall And Calvine also approveth this sense Hac vera est ceremoniarum perpetuitas c. This is the true perpetuitie of the ceremonies that they have their being in Christ the substance and truth of them QUEST IX The spirituall application of Aarons manner of consecration NOw this manner of consecrating of Aaron by offering sacrifices washing putting on the Priestly apparell in being anointed hath this signification 1. The presenting of the bullocke to be sacrificed Aspersionem designat sanguinis Domini nostri doth signifie the sprinkling of Christs bloud Beda The two rams doe set forth Christ ex anima corpore c. consisting in his humane nature of bodie and soule Strabus
it should not be lawfull to offer their sacrifices elsewhere but upon that Altar Osiander 3. To the cleansing of the Altar two things only were required the bloud of the sacrifice was laid upon the hornes of the Altar and it was anointed with oile Borrh. Tostatus beside saith that the bloud which was powred upon the Altar was rubbed and scraped off and it was cleansed from the ashes But neither of these were now needfull to be done for the Altar yet neither had much bloud powred into it nor was full of ashes this being the first time of hallowing and consecrating it And though the Latine text so reade Numb 4.13 mundabis illâ—d cinere thou shalt cleanse it from the ashes the word is dishun they shall take the ashes from it when they were to remove the Altar but the ashes did not deâ—ile the Altar QUEST XLV How the Altar sanctified whatsoever touched it Vers. 37. SO the Altar shall be most holy 1. This name kodesh kadashim holy of holies that is most holy was peculiar unto that place of the Tabernacle where the Arke was but here it is used in another sense Lyran. And thereby is signified that it should be most holy in respect of the use because it should sanctifie whatsoever touched it as it followeth in the next words Oleaster 2. Whatsoever toucheth it shall be holy Which Tostatus expoundeth thus that every one which commeth to the Altar must bee sanctified before and so hee referreth it to the persons So also Vatabl. Osiander But the text sheweth that by touching of the Altar the thing should thereby be sanctified and made holy Rab. Salomon expoundeth it thus that if any thing to bee offered upon the Altar should chance to gather any pollution it was mundified and cleansed by the Altar But the meaning rather is that such things as were offered upon the Altar were thereby sanctified that is consecrated to an holy use and were no more to returne to any prophane use and the things offered therein were only to be eaten by the Priests Lippoman And this interpretation is confirmed by the words of our blessed Saviour Matth. 23.19 Ye fooles and blind whether is greater the offering or the Altar which sanctifieth the offering Iunius Gallas QUEST XLVI Of the daily sacrifice with the rites thereof Vers. 38. TWo lambes of a yeere old 1. These lambes were to be offered daily beside all their other extraordinary sacrifices as burnt-offerings peace-offerings and whatsoever else Tostat. 2. For the age of them Lyranus thinketh that if they were under a yeere old from eight dayes old and upward they might be offered But that is not like a lambe of a moneth old cannot be said to be a yeere old this then is required that it should be a perfect beast and of sufficient growth Simler 3. There are foure things required for the daily sacrifice a lambe fine flower oile and wine whereby all the fruits of the earth and the kindes thereof are signified Cajetane God will have nothing lacking to the daily sacrifice as he would have flesh offered so likewise bread and wine Tostat. qu. 20. 4. This sacrifice was to be done continually to make a difference betweene this and other sacrifices which were not to be offered continually but as they had occasion Tostat. 5. And this daily sacrifice was of the kinde of burnt-offerings it was to be wholly burnt upon the Altar together with the wine and oile which should be powred upon it as it is called a burnt offering vers 41. 6. But this daily sacrifice could not be offered continually while they were in the desert it was to be put in practice when they came into the land of Canaan as is evident by the like Lawes concerning other sacrifices and offerings Numb 15.2 When yee are come into the land of your habitation and will make an offering c. for many things were neglected in the wildernesse by reason of their continuall travell and want of necessary things and therefore the Lord saith when they are come into the land of Canaan Ye shall not doe after all these things which yee die here this day Deut. 12.8 Tostat. qu. 20. 7. The time of the offering these two lambes was in the morning and betweene the two evenings which was not after the Sunne set as Oleaster who noteth the word ghereb evening to be taken either for the twilight after Sunne set or for the night it selfe but the time was rather inter occasum solis solem propinquum occasni betweene the setting of the Sunne and the declining of the Sunne Cajetane which might be from the ninth houre for from thence began the time of the evening sacrifice as Iosephus See more hereof chap. 16. qu. 10. 8. So this continuall and daily sacrifice is commanded and set forth in these six things 1. It was a burnt offering that is wholly consumed upon the Altar 2. It was acceptable of a sweet savour 3. It was continuall 4. In respect of the place it must be offered at the doore of the Tabernacle 5. And for the fruit thereof there the Lord will appoint to speake with them Cajetane 6. And beside this sacrifice had both fine slower wine and oile to attend upon it QUEST XLVII How much the Hin contained Vers. 40. A Tenth part of fine flower and the fourth part of an Hin of oile The tenth part of an Epha is meant as it is expounded Numb 28.5 which was a Ghomer chap. 16.36 containing about three pints so much as 42. egs can receive of this measure see before chap. 16. quest 24. Now it is to be shewed how much this measure of the Hin contained which was a measure of liquid things as the Ghomer and Epha were of drie 1. Some thinke that it cannot now be certainly knowne how much the Hebrew measures contained Lyran. Tostat. Cajetan and so they leave it as uncertaine 2. Lyranus alleageth out of Papiaâ— that there were two kinde of measures called the Hin the greater which held foure quarts of Paris measure and the lesse two quarts But it is evident that the measure of the Hin was but one and that of a certaine quaintity which was well knowne as mention thereof is made Numb 15.4 5.7.10 and in divers other places And it neither was so little to containe two quarts nor so large to hold foure 3. Pelargus thinketh the Hin contained two Sextaries and an halfe the Sextarius being a measure according to Glarean of foure inches long three inches deepe and as many broad is about our pint and halfe so that in this account the Hin should not receive foure pints in all 4. Some thinke it held foure Sextarii which make six pints Borrh. and this account agreeth with the computation of the Hebrewes who doe generally hold that the Hin contained twelve of the measure called Log and a Log held six egs so that the Hin was of the capacitie of 72. egs and the fourth part thereof
Chapter somewhat would be briefly touched concerning the difference betweene this golden Altar which Moses made and that which Salomon erected 1. Some thinke that Salomon made a new Altar of incense as Comestor Tostat. qu. 16. in cap. 6. 1. Reg. because this was made of Shittim wood but Salomons of Cedar But Ribera answereth that it is not said that Salomon made the golden Altar of Cedar but onely covered it with Cedar 1 King 6.22 that is enlarged it lib. 2. cap. 8. de Templ 2. But Beda and Lyranus are farre wide who thinke that Salomon made the Altar of incense of stone which was covered over with Cedar Osiander The text before alleaged is evident that it was of Cedar there is no mention made of stone 3. Iunius his opinion is that it was the same Altar and readeth thus Obduxit altare Câ—drinum He laid over the Altar of Cedar not with Cedar but gold as it followeth ibid. v. 22. but the Altar which Moses made was of Shittim wood the Cedar is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or enrit seemeth then they were two divers kinds of wood 4. Ribera therefore thinketh that 〈◊〉 first did enlarge the golden Altar with Gods 〈◊〉 and then covered it with gold so that it was the same Altar but enlarged So also Borrhaius For the words of the Text are he covered the golden Altar with Cedar and Iosephus writeth evidently that Salomon did build a new brazen Altar but of making a new golden Altar he maketh no mention Ribera ibid So some things were made new by Salomon as the brazen Altar and the brazen sea or lover ten golden candlesticks ten tables 2 Chron. 4. Some things he only beautified and enlarged as the Arke over the which he made two Cherubims beside those upon the Mercie seat 1 King 6.23 Likewise he enlarged the Altar of incense for one Altar might serve to burne incense upon though for other services the number of vessels and instruments was increased according to the proportion of the Temple which was larger than the Tabernacle QUEST XV. Whether it were lawfull to number the people and wherein David offended Vers. 12. WHen thou takest the summe of the children of Israel c. 1. Simply then it is not unlawfull to number the people which may be done upon two necessarie occasions as when either a publike collection is to be made of tribute or subsidie money unlesse account should be taken the burthen should lye upon a few and others should escape Againe when any great warres are taken in hand it is fit that the people should be mustered that choice may be made of such as are fit for warre Tostat. qu. 9. 2. But then Davids example will be objected with whom God was offended for the numbring of the people To this divers answers are made 1. Augustine thinketh David did evill therein to number the people quia Deus non jusserat because God commanded him not But this is no sufficient reason for then it should be unlawfull for Princes now to number the people they having no speciall warrant from God 2. Simlerus saith that God was angrie with David because non curavit Domino persolvi tributum hee did not cause this tribute here appointed to bee given unto God So also Beda But this was not the cause neither for neither did Moses when he numbred the people which he did thrice Exod. 38. Numb 10. and 26. Neither is it like that David was so ignorant of the Law 3. Oleaster maketh this the reason because the Lord promised to multiply the seed of Abraham as the starres of Heaven and the sand of the sea without number therefore he was angrie whensoever they were numbred But by this reason they should never have beene numbred at all rather this might tend to Gods glorie in seeing by the numbers of the people how the Lord performed his promise 4. This rather was the cause of Gods indignation because David numbred the people for an evill end ad gloriam suam for his owne glorie to rejoyce and as it were to put confidence in their multitude Tostat. qu. 9. Therefore Haec sive superbia sive temeritas sive ingratitudo this either pride or rashnesse or ingratitude was severely punished Calvin QUEST XVI Whether this collection of money were commanded only at this time or were to continue WHen thou takest 1. Some thinke though here be no certaine time expressed when this account of the people should be taken whether everie yeare or everie fifth yeare as the ancient Romans used to doe yet this is certaine that whensoever the people was numbred this summe of halfe a sicle of everie one was collected Simler Lippoman thinketh also that they were often numbred ut gratia Dei agnosceretur c. that the grace and goodnesse of God might bee acknowledged in multiplying his people And it is the received opinion of the Hebrewes that this precept for the collection of this summe was perpetuall and anniversarie toward the charge of repairing the Tabernacle and maintaining of the sacrifices and other services So also Calvin in 17. Matth. vers 24. 2. But Iunius opinion is more probable with whom agreeth Beza annot in Matth. 17.24 that this was a precept only for this time and not to continue afterward which he confirmeth by these reasons 1. From the end and use of this money which was to acknowledge their late redemption and deliverance out of the bondage of Egypt 2. Moses himselfe did not exact this summe when hee numbred the people againe Numb 1. and the third time Numb 26. 3. This money was not to be spent in the sacrifices which were consumed but in the worke of the Tabernacle which was permanent and remained and so it was as a memoriall for them before the Lord vers 16. And of this money now collected which came to 100. talents of silver and 1775. shekels were made the sockets of the Sanctuarie and of the veile the hookes also and the fillets of the pillars Exod. 38.26 27. So that the end of this collection being extraordinarie and for this time only toward the building of the Tabernacle and the instruments thereof it was not to be perpetuall 4. And if this proportion had beene perpetually to be observed for everie one to pay halfe a shekel toward the Tabernacle Nehemiah would not have appointed another rate that everie one should pay the third part of a shekel by the yeare toward the service of Gods house Nehem. 10.32 3. But this further may be added though this manner of collection was not enjoyned as ordinarie and perpetuall yet upon the like occasion as to repaire the ruines of the Temple they might raise Moses tax upon the people as Ioash did 2 Chron. 24.9 which was upon the like extraordinarie occasion which ceasing the collection also was intermitted as Ioash said to the Priests that having received money of the people yet were slacke to repaire the decayed places of the Temple
blessed Saviour saith Without me yee can do nothing Ioh. 15.5 3. Confut. No festivall daies to be dedicated to Saints Vers. 17. IT is a signe betweene me and the children of Israel c. If this festivall day of the sabbath was consecrated unto the Lords honour and it was a signe betweene the people and him hence it is evident that holy and festivall daies are not to be erected to the honour of Saints The Lord is the Creator of time and daies and therefore he only must have the honour of them Simler 4. Confut. Against the observation of the Iewish festivalâ— Vers. 17. FOr ever c. Hence the Ebionites grounded their heresie that Christians were bound now to keepe the Jewish Sabbath because the Lord calleth it here and in the former verse an everlasting covenant But this is a weake and slender ground Augustine thinketh it is called an everlasting covenant because the Sabbath was a signe of that which was eternall namely our spirituall rest in Christ or because there is no time prefixed or determined for the continuance of it But rather it is so called not simply but in respect of the policie and state of that Common-wealth that as long as it stood and the time of ceremonies did hold so long should the law of the Sabbath be in force for otherwise they may as well urge the celebration of the Jewish Passeover which is established by an ordinance for ever Exod. 12.17 and Aarons Priesthood by the same reason should continue still of the which the Lord saith Exod. â—8 43 This shall be a law for ever unto him and his seed after him 6 Morall observations 1. Observ. Arts not to be abused to any unlawfull purpose Vers. 2. WHom I have filled with the Spirit of God Seeing humane Arts are the gift of God artificers must take heed that they do not profane Gods good gifts and abuse their trades to pride wantonnes superstition or such like Gallas B. Babingâ— As in these daies many doe make their handicrafts to attend as handmaids upon pride And some thereby set forth superstition and idolatrie as Esay describeth the foolishnes and vanitie of such as carved images to make them gods thereof to worship Isai. 44.13 Such an one was Demetrius who made silver shrines for Diana Act. 17. 2. Observ. Against vaine pompe in the multitude of servant and officers Vers. 4. TO worke in gold silver brasse c. The Lord could have raised up a cunning workman in every one of these but hee rather thought it good to give unto one man skill in all these whereby the pompe of many vaine glorious persons in the world is reproved that will have a severall officer for every service as Oleaster noteth Alius culinam curat aliuâ— equos c. One looketh to the kitchin another to the horse a third waiteth on the table another attendeth in the chamber c. Bernard reproved this pompe in the Abbats of his time whereof some hee noteth to have ridden in the way accompanied with threescore horse Aâ— non unus aliquis minister posset saith he jâ—mentuâ— ligare ad mensam servire lectulum praeparare May not one minister suffice to saddle the horse serve at the table and make the bed But Oleaster here is overseene to checke Princes for this their magnificence and state in having many officers for it is seemely for their high place and calling to bee served in different sort from others In meaner persons it may worthily be noted for a fault if any in the vaine ostentation of servants and officers shall exceed the bounds of their calling 3. Observ. Gifts to be mutually communicated Vers. 6. I Have joyned with him Aholiab Oleaster hereupon giveth another good note Serui Dei societatem admittunt The servants of God refuse not societie though they have never so good gifts yet they desire the helpe of others as Moses envied not that Eldad and Medad prophesied in the campe So then as in the bodie one member standeth in need of another so is it in the diversitie of gifts which are given to the members of Christs mysticall bodie they should communicate them one to another and so use them as best may serve for the common good of the Church CHAP. XXXII 1. The Method and Argument IN this Chapter is set forth the sinne of Israel in committing most grosse idolatries whereof there are foure parts 1. The narration of their wicked fact to Vers. 7 2. The examining of their fact and the knowledge thereof to vers 26. 3. The punishment inflicted thence to vers 30. 4. A preparation to their repentance vers 30. to the end 1. Their sin is described 1. Both by the counsell and advice which they tookes first the people in propounding the matter to Aaron to make them gods with the occasion moving them therto the absence of Moses then Aaron in setting them a course what to doe vers 2. 2. By the fact it selfe which is either of them apart of the people in bringing their jewels vers 3. of Aaron in making thereof a Calfe and setting up an Altar vers 4 5. or of them both together Aaron proclaimeth an holy day vers 5. The people offer sacrifices eat drinke and play vers 6. 2. The examination cognizance or taking knowledge of this sinne was either while Moses was with God to vers 15. or when he was departed from God and returned to the campe 1. In the first there is first the Lords complaint of the people in generall that they had corrupted their waies vers 7. so also vers 9. in particular by the description of their sinne vers 8. Secondly Moses intercession with the effect thereof Moses intercession is grounded upon three reasons The deliverance of the people vers 11. The blasphemie of the Egyptians which is feared vers 12. The covenant made with their fathers vers 13. Then the effect is God changed his minde vers 14. 2. In the second cognizance there are two degrees first Moses confused knowledge when they were yet a farre off as he went and conferred with Ioshua to vers 19. Then his certaine knowledge 1. By the sight of his eyes vers 19. whereupon followed two effects of his indignation the breaking of the Tables and the burning of the golden Calfe vers 20 21. 2. By Aarons confession whom Moses fifteth and examineth to vers 25. 3. The punishment is thus set forth 1. The reason that moved Moses to take revenge the nakednes of the people vers 26. 2. Moses charge to the Levites vers 26.27 3. The execution vers 28 29. 4. The preparation to their repentance and reconciliation consisteth 1. of Moses admonition to the people vers 30. Of Moses supplication unto God his petition which containeth the confession of their sinne vers 32. and the craving of pardon with a disjunction or else himselfe to bee blotted out c. 2. And of Gods answer wherein the Lord refuseth Moses disjunctive
sacrificing and dancing before it some goe about to excuse 1. There are which doe thus qualifie the first petition of the people Make us gods that because the word Elohim gods is applied to Magistrates and great men as well as unto gods they say their meaning was to desire onely some guide and governour to bee given them in Moses place But this cannot be so for these reasons 1. Aaron could not make them a man to be a governour or guide but by generation which could not have beene done but in continuance of time 2. And if that had been their request to what purpose should Aaron have demanded their earings 3. And the golden calfe being made and set up why did they worship and dance before it if it were not their meaning to have such an one made Tostat. qu. 10. 2. Quidam ajunt hostiam non esse mactatam in honorem vituli c. Some thinke that the sacrifice was not slaine for the honour of the golden Calfe but to be an expiation of their sinne Ex Procâ—p But the contrary appeareth vers 8. the Lord himselfe saith they offered unto it and if they had sorrowed for their sinne they would not have leaped and danced as they did 3. Some Hebrewes say further that Aaron and the Israelites intended not to worship the Calfe but did keep that solemnity unto Iehovah as Aaron caused to be proclaimed God was offended with them because they offered sacrifices being not commanded to doe it c. Contra. 1. Though they had not worshipped the golden Calfe yet it was a great impiety in them to cause it to be made with any such intent to be a scandall and offence 2. They sinned concerning the Calfe in singing praises unto it and in sacrificing unto it saying These are thy gods c. And the Lord himselfe saith They offered unto it vers 8. 3. And Moses himselfe calleth the calfe their sinne and stamped it to powder Deut. 9.21 and made them drinke thereof all which sheweth that they sinned concerning the Calfe Tostatus qu. 14. QUEST XXIV Of the lawfulnesse of play and recreation and how it must be moderated Vers. 6. THey rose up to play By occasion of this word here it shall not be amisse to insert somewhat concerning play recreation and delight how farre it may be lawfull 1. Like as the body being wearied with labour had need of some rest so the minde being with much study and contemplation dulled requireth some refreshing quies animâ— est delectatio the rest of the minde is recreation and delight as it is reported of Iohn the Evangelist as Thom. Aquin. writeth that certaine were offended seeing him playing with some of his disciples then he bad one of them draw a bow and shoot an arrow and after that another asking him if he could doe so continually they answered No for then the bow would breake So saith he would the minde of man be broken Si nunquam ab intentione sua relaxaretur If it should never have intermission from serious studie 2. But here three things specially must bee observed concerning the moderation of delights and recreation 1. This delight must not be in operationibus vel verbis turpibus in unseemlie and uncleane words or actions for that were obscene scurrilitie 2. We must have a care that the minde be not wholly given over to sport and delight as Ambrose saith Caveamus ne dum animum relaxare volumus solvamus omnem harmoniam tanquam concentum honorum operum Let us take heed lest while we would recreate the minde wee doe not dissolve the harmonie and concent of profitable works 3. It must be carefully seene unto that our recreation congruat tempori personae loco doe agree unto the time person and place 3. Whereas then Chrysostom saith Non dat Deus ludere sed diabolus God is not the giver and author of play but the devill and thereupon he alleageth this text They sate downe to eat and drinke and rose up to play He must be understood to speake of those qui inordinatè ludis utuntur which use playes inordinately which abuse and excesse consisteth in two things 1. Ex ipsa specie actionum c. In the very kinde of actions wherein the delight consisteth if they be illiberall obscene and uncomely 2. Secundùm defectum debitarum circumstantiarum If there be a defect in the due circumstances of time person or place Sic Thomas QUEST XXV Why the Lord biddeth Moses get him downe Vers. 7. THen the Lord said to Moses Go get thee downe 1. Cajetan thinketh that Moses having received the tables of the law and the Lord having left talking with him that Moses was now going downe But it is not like that Moses would have departed before the Lord spake unto him to bid him goe The Lord had ended all his former communication Sed nondum dicitur discessisse à colloquio Dei but hee was not yet departed from the presence and speech of God Simler 2. Rab. Salomon thinketh that this is to be understood of the great dishonour which Moses sustained by the disobedience of the people as if the Lord should have said Descende de honore Descend from thine honour But it is evident in that Moses presently upon these words came downe from the mount that the Lord spake of his locall descending 3. Tostatus giveth this reason why he is bid to descend because it was not necessarie that Moses now should stay any longer to receive lawes and precepts for the people for they should be given in vaine to such a disobedient people But the Lord even at this instant had given Moses the tables of the law therefore that was not the reason 4. But he is willed to goe downe quickly Vt effraenem populi licentiam cohiberet That he might stay the unbridled licentiousnesse of the people and to chastise them for their disobedience Gallas He sendeth him downe Ad puniendum corum peccatum c. to punish their sinne Lyran. Ferus QUEST XXVI Why the Lord saith to Moses Thy people Vers. 7. FOr thy people which thou hast brought c. 1. Some doe expound it thus Tuus cognitione carnis vel affectu sollicitudinis Thy people in respect of the kindred of the flesh or loving care Interlinear But more is thereby signified 2. Some thinke by this which is added thy people Mosem quodammodo vocari in partem criminis c. That Moses here after a sort is brought into the crime to trie his patience Calvin He saith thy people ad cumulum criminis ut etiam ipsum Mosem peccasse significetur To accumulate the crime thereby to signifie that Moses in a manner had sinned in them Cajetan But Moses could no way be touched with their sinne being not at all accessarie unto it 3. The most doe make this collection that God who while they were obedient vouchsafed to call them his people now doth renounce them calling them not my people
to the passions and affections of men yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is convenient to understand of God who seemeth to repent and change sinâ— motu quod nos sine motu nostri non possumus facere without any motion or passion at all which wee cannot doe without passion Iun. Wee could not understand how the Lord turneth from his wrath unlesse the Scripture should speake to our capacitie Pelarg. 2. So indeed the Lord is immutable and unchangeable in himselfe but Dicit se mutâ—re sententiam non in homines sed in opera quae mutata sunt He is said to change his sentence not toward men but in respect of the workes or things that are changed For God is not angrie with men but with their sins which ceasing to be nequaquam pâ—nit quod mutatum est God punisheth not that which is changed Hierom. God is said to repent cum rem mutet consilium non mutet when he changeth the thing not his counsell Gloss. interlin 3. But it will bee said that God is here changed indeed that whereas hee purposed to destroy Israel at once yet he doth it not at Moses intercession It may bee answered 1. That God here had determined no such thing sed loquebatur per modum optantis but he spake after a wishing manner let me alone Tostat. qu. 20. 2. We must understand that the divine sentence is of two sorts one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a condition such was the proclamation against Niniveh that within fortie dayes they should be destroyed and the message sent by Isaiah to Ezekiah that he should die for in these sentences there was a secret condition included in the one of the Ninivites repentance in the other of Ezechiahs intercession so there is here a condition understood that the Lord would bee intreated by Moses The other kinde of sentence is absolute without any condition such was the decree for the destruction of the old world by water and of the overthrow of Pharaoh and his host in the red sea Bâ—â—rh QUEST XL. Whether Moses at this time was kept in suspense or indeed obtained pardon for the people Vers. 14. REpented of the evill which he threatned to doe unto his people 1. Some thinke that an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here to be admitted because Moses obtaining nothing at this time but at his second intreatie as is shewed in the end of the chapter Et nullo accepto veniae responso suspensum venisse And that he came downe in suspence having received no answer for any pardon Calvin Gallas But it is not like that Moses would have given over and gone away till he had knowne the Lords minde in part 2. Iunius thinketh that Deus distulit donec Moses vidisset God onely deferred his sentence till Moses had seene what might bee done with the people and consilium fustinuit suspended his counsell But the Text sheweth more that God at Moses request actually repented of the evill which hee had threatned Moses therefore is here put out of doubt for that that the people at this time should not be destroyed 3. Cajetan thinketh that Moses onely intreated quod non tunc fiat punitio quam populus meretur that the people at that time be not punished as they deserved But Moses reasons tend to that end that the people at all should not utterly be destroyed because of Gods promise made to Abraham Isaak and Iacob and so much he obtained 4. But Oleaster goeth somewhat too farre that Moses did not onely intreat God not to punish sed ut cum poenite at voluisse punire but that he would repent him that hee had purposed to punish But that had beene too great boldnesse in Moses to have presumed so farre and it was enough that he by his prayer obtained a pardon of that great punishment 5. Wherefore Moses obtained only by his prayer now at this time that the Lord mitigated his sentence neâ— totum populum per dere velir that he would not destroy the whole people Marbâ—ch and hee only repenteth of the evill which was threatned that is ne totaliter deleret that hee would not wholly destroy them yet God might not withstanding consume them per partes by parts as hee did afterward in the desart for if Moses had obtained an absolute and generall pardon hee needed not have sollicited the Lord againe as he did in the end of the chapter nay he continued his supplication unto God for the people fortie dayes and fortie nights Deut. 9.29 Tostat. qu. 20. QUEST XLI What was written in the tables of stone Vers. 15. THe tables were written c. 1. Some Hebrewes thinke that beside the morall Law which consisted of ten Commandements there was written the exposition as a commentarie of the Law But that is not like 1. Because the Commandements being certaine evident and knowne principles grounded upon the light of nature needed not to receive any exposition by the Law-giver himselfe but afterwâ—rd the same were explaned and amplified by Moses 2. If there had beene any such exposition Moses when hee declared to the people the ten Commandements Deut. 5. would not have omitted them being a part of Gods writing 3. Seeing the tables were to be kept in the Arke never to be brought into the peoples sight it was requisite if there had beene any such exposition that it should have beene set downe in some of Moses bookes that the people might have taken knowledge thereof Tostat. qu. 22. 2. Therefore there was no such exposition nor any other thing written in the tables beside the ten Commandements 1. Not because as some thinke there were yet no other lawes delivered to the people for it is evident that Moses before hee came downe from the mount when the Lord had uttered with his owne voice the ten Commandements received also other lawes judiciall and ceremoniall of the Lord as they are set downe chap. 21 22 23. and writ them in a booke and read them to the people Exod. 24. therefore other lawes were given before to Moses before hee came downe with the tables of stone 2. And the reason which Isidore giveth why the ten Commandements were there only written is both curious and without ground Vt per eundem numerum figura crucis exprimeretur that the figure of the crosse might be thereby expressed for the Roman X signifieth ten and doth also represent the figure of the crosse for neither doth this figure in the Hebrew tongue signifie ten neither was there any such figure written in the tables 3. These reasons rather may be yeelded why the morall precepts only were written in these tables 1. Because these onely the Lord pronounced with his owne mouth the other were delivered by Moses 2. The morall precepts are most evident and manifest as grounded upon the light of nature 3. They were so pronounced as that all the people were witnesses thereof and therefore least exception could be taken
all his courses shew the contrarie that hee sought still the good of the people and not his owne 2. Cajetan also hath the like note Dola tibi non mihi ego enim non indigeo tua dolatione Hew to thy selfe not for me for I need none of thy hewing nor yet any of these tables 3. But it is rather a phrase of speech in the Hebrew tongue as Vado tibi ibo mihi Goe thee or I will goe me wherein the English phrase is answerable unto the Hebrew manner of speech And this kinde of speech is often used when no profit is intended as Numb 13.3 the Lord saith to Moses shelach 〈◊〉 Mitte tibi Send thee men to search the land which was not to Moses benefit Oleast So here lecut◠thee is added ex superabundanti of abundance more than needeth Tostat. qu. 2. 4. Lyranus noteth further that because Moses had broken the first tables it was just and right that he should make new QUEST III. Whether the Lord or Moses wrote in these tables and why I Will write 1. God himselfe did write the same words in these tables the ten Commandements which was in the former though Moses prepared them and whereas it is said afterward vers 28. He wrote in the tables it must be referred unto God not unto Moses some make this answer that God did write them because it was done by his authoritie but Moses ministerialiter Moses ministerially But that is not like for whence should Moses have these instruments wherewith he should grave these letters seeing he carried none into the mount Lyranus But to this reason Tostatus who doth often without cause oppose himselfe to Lyranus taketh this exception that as Moses had instruments wherewith to hew out of the rocke the tables so he might have other to grave with Contra. But Moses hewed out the tables after he was gone downe from the Lord before he came up againe and brought them readie hewen and made Moses then had no reason to carry any instruments with him 2. The writing mentioned vers 27. where the Lord saith to Moses Write thou these words is understood of Moses writing not the ten Commandements but the other lawes given in this place in an authenticall booke not in the tables of stone Tostat. Iunius as further is declared in the questions upon the 31. chap. vers 18. 3. In that Moses himselfe hewed these tables Procopius would have Christ the true Lawgiver shadowed forth Qui ipse carnis suae lapicida Who was the preparer and hewer out as it were of his owne flesh But more properly herein Moses resembled Christ that as the first tables being broken the second were prepared by Moses so the law of nature being decaied in man it is repaired in us by Christ and the image of God renued in us Simler Ferus 4. R. Cahadiagon sheweth divers frivolous reasons why these second tables fuerunt digniores primis were more worthie than the first but he is convinced by this that the first were both of Gods making and writing but the latter were onely written by the Lord and prepared by Moses QUEST IV. Whether Moses was to be readie the next morning and why Vers. 2. BE readie in the morning c. 1. Cajetan thinketh that this was not the next morning because the tables could not be hewed and finished in one day but he thinketh onely the time of the day to be noted that he should come up in the morning But beside that the phrase Be readie in the morning or on the morrow alwayes includeth a signification of the next morning following Moses should have beene left in great doubt and suspense when to come up if the Lord had not assigned the time as for the finishing of the worke there is no question but that Moses being thereunto appointed and so enabled of God might dispatch it in a day 2. Therefore Iunius opinion is rather to be received who giveth this sense as though the Lord should thus say to Moses Hodie illas expedi Make them readie to day that you may come up in the morning so also Tostatus who thinketh that when the Lord had thus said to Moses he descended and made readie the tables against the next day 3. By this then it is evident that when the Lord had all that communication with Moses as is set downe chap. 33. that Moses was not gone up to the Lord to the mount the second solemne time as thinketh Tostatus where he continued fortie dayes more for all that while he came not downe See before chap. 33. qu. 55. 4. The morning is prescribed as Lyranus thinketh Quia talis hora est convenientier c. because that houre is more convenient to talke with God as also Quia Deus amat hilarem obedientem servum The Lord loveth cheerfull obedience Ferus and he is bid to come up betimes as Tostatus thinketh that the people should not see what he carried quest 4. But seeing that Moses spent most of the day in hewing the tables it is not like that the people were ignorant what he did and Simlerus thinketh rather that the people saw Moses bearing the tables QUEST V. Why none are suffered to come up now with Moses Vers. 3. LEt no man come up with thee 1. At the first time when Moses went up to receive the Law Aaron Nadab and Abihu went up with him and 70. of the Elders and Ioshua accompanied him still after he had left the other but now none is permitted to come up with him because the Lord intended to shew unto Moses a more glorious sight which he would have none else made partakers of but Moses 2. This was not onely done for more reverence sake because the Lord shewed himselfe there in some visible signe as Lyranus for the Lord at other times as when he gave the Law the first time did shew himselfe by visible signes when yet no such prohibition was given therefore Burgensis noteth that this apparition was majori◠solemnitatis of greater solemnitie than the former and that the Lord did now shew his secrets to Moses which it was not lawfull for any other to see whereupon Moses face shined at his comming downe now and not before therefore curiositatis cohibenda causa to stay their curiositie none are permitted to come up with Moses Simler 3. Here is no mention made of thunder or lightning as in the giving of the Law Hic omnia laet◠sunt All things here are cheerfull because this was a signe of the giving of the Gospell Ferus 4. Another reason hereof that none ascended with Moses was to get him more authoritie with the people when they see that he onely hath accesse unto Gods presence Simler 5. And if Moses had taken some witnesses with him as hee did when hee smote the rocke it had not beene so much an act of faith as an evidence of their sight to acknowledge thus he received the law of God
face was glorious as S. Paul also calleth it the glory of Moses countenance 2 Cor. 3.7 So also reade the best Interpreters Vatab. Montan. Paguin Oleast Iunius QUEST XLVIII Why it pleased God to give such great glorie unto Moses countenance NOw it pleased God to print such a majesty and shining glory in Moses countenance for these reasons 1. God did bestow this gift upon Moses as a speciall signe of his favour and love toward him 2. By this the people might be assured that the Lord had heard Moses prayers and that he would renue his league with them and take them into his protection 3. And by this meanes Moses should be had in greater reverence and reputation with the people Tostat. quaest 25. Simler 4. This was done also ut lex illa valde honorata crederetur c. that the Law it selfe should be held to be glorious and honourable the Minister whereof was so glorious Tostat. 5. Thereby was signified also the inward illumination which Moses had whereby he was able to shine unto them in purenesse of doctrine 6. It also shewed what the righteousnesse of the Law is onely a shining of the face that is of the externall works before men it cannot afford the inward and spirituall justice in the sight of God Simler 7. Rupertus by these second tables which Moses brought downe with such great glory understandeth the glory of the Gospell But because the Apostle setteth the glory of the Gospell against the glory of the Law and sheweth that in respect of the exceeding great glory of the Gospell the Law was not glorious at all 2 Cor. 3.10 I rather preferre Origens elegant collection Nihil in lege gloriosum habet Moses praeter solam faciem That Moses had nothing glorious in the Law beside his face his hands were leprous by putting them into his bosome his feet also had no glory he being bid to put off his shooes and so by that ceremony he was to deliver over the spouse unto another But in the Gospell he appeared in the mount with Christ totus glorificatus all glorified c. Thus Origene elegantly sheweth the preeminence of the Gospell before the Law 8. Ambrose sometime thus applieth it Vultus patris filius The countenance of the father is the sonne and so maketh Moses a type of Christ who is the glory of the Father But that application is more proper Vultus Moses fulgor est legis fulgor autem legis non in litera sed in intellectu spirituali The countenance of Moses is the brightnesse of the Law the brightnesse of the Law is not in the letter but in the spirituall understanding which was hid from the Jewes QUEST XLIX Why Moses face shined more now at Moses second being in the mount than before 1. SOme give this reason why Moses face did shine now at his second being with God rather than at the first time because then Moses had not tam claram cognitionem such cleere understanding and knowledge of God as now which is signified by the shining of his face Lyran. 2. Rab. Salomon saith that by the laying of Gods hand upon Moses face it became bright and shining but Moses sight was hindred by that meanes from seeing Gods great glory and it was not the hand of that glorious body which appeared to Moses but some mist or cloud that was cast before Moses as is shewed before chap. 33. quest 51. 5. Gallasius saith it was illustre testimonium familiaris illius communicationis c. a most cleere testimonie of that familiar communication which Moses had with God But Moses had familiar conference with the Lord before for he spake unto him face to face chap. 33.11 4. Lippoman Ex longa collocutione conversatione cum Deo assecutus est c. Moses obtained this by his long conference and conversing with God But Moses had stayed as long before with God forty dayes and forty nights 5. Therefore the reasons rather are these 1. This glory was given him ad honorem legis for the honour of the Law but the first tables were broken and therefore it was not to be given then but now for the honour of these tables which should remaine 2. Moses had desired that the Lord would give them preeminence before all other people which notably appeareth in this dignity conferred upon Moses their Governour which never any had before 3. But the speciall efficient cause of this glory was ex visu Domini by the sight of the Lord Moses had now a more cleere sight of Gods glory than before Tostat. qu. 25. as things which the beames of the Sunne beat directly upon seeme also to shine Simler Oriente die rubet terra iraceo colore perfusa When the day ariseth the earth seemeth to shine red as with saffron colour and precious stones give a bright hue to those things which are next them Ambrose So that glorious body which Moses saw lightened also his face And the holy Apostle alluding hereunto saith We all behold as in a mirror the glory of the Lord with open face and are changed into the same image 2 Cor. 3.18 So Moses face was changed into the image of that great glory which he saw in the mount QUEST L. Why the people were afraid to come neere Moses Vers. 30. THey were afraid to come neere him 1. The cause of this feare of the people was partly necessary in respect of their weaknesse and infirmity because they were not able to behold Moses face for the glory thereof as the Apostle noteth 2 Corinth 3.6 2. It was partly voluntary they would not come neere him for reverence sake taking that light and brightnesse for some divine thing Tostat. qu. 26. 3. Moses shining countenance was the rather a terrour to the people peccati nuper commissi sibi conscio being guilty in themselves of that sinne which they had lately committed Simlerus 4. The people also were hereby admonished ut quiddam altius lege requirerent that they should seeke for somewhat higher than the Law Gallas 5. And this further may be considered hanc illis dedecoris notam fuisse inustam c. that this was a marke of ignominie set upon them that by their sinne they had so farre separated themselves from the glorious presence of God that they were not able to indure the countenance of his servant Calvin 6. And herein appeareth a manifest difference betweene Moses and Christ the Law and the Gospell Contrarius splendor faciei Christi in qua amabilis gratia refulget The brightnesse of Christs face is contrary wherein amiable grace shineth Borrhaius QUEST LI. Whether Moses covered his face before he spake to the people or after Vers. 33. SO Moses had made an end of communing with them and had put a vaile upon his face 1. Calvin thinketh that first Moses talked with the people but he was constrained sermonem abrumpere populi discessu vel fuga to breake off his
such like but in these cases the partie was uncleane sometimes onely to the even sometimes for the space of seven daies Levit. 15.13 18. The Priest therefore when any such uncleannesse was upon him could not enter into the Sanctuarie at all the washing of his hands and feet then at the brasen Layer would not serve the turne But though they were free from all other kinds of uncleannesse yet they were to wash their hands and feet alwaies when they went into the Tabernacle 3. The spirituall reason of the washing the hands and feet is this by the hands are understood the workes and operations by feet the affections of the soule Ministers and generally all that approach and draw neere unto God must be both of cleane heart and of cleane waies and workes when they come before God as for the hands the Apostle willeth that everie where men should lift up pure hands and concerning the feet the Preacher saith Take heed unto thy feet when thou entrest into the house of God QUEST X. What cloud this was which covered the Tabernacle Vers. 34. THen the cloud covered the Tabernacle c. 1. This was not another cloud beside that which was called the pillar of the cloud as some thinke but the very same both because of the appearance of it by night as fire as the other seemed as a pillar of fire in the night as also there was the same use of this cloud to direct them in their journeyes as of the pillar Exod. 13.21 Tostat. qu. 10. 2. Some thinke while the people camped about mount Sinai that this cloud vanished away which was the cause why the people desired gods to go before them and that now as soone as the Tabernacle was made it appeared againe But that is not like for chap. 13.22 it is said that the Lord tooke not away the pillar of the cloud by day c. And seeing the Manna did fall every day which was an evident signe of Gods presence among them though the cloud had not been in their sight that had been no cause to move thâ—â— to desire a guide Simler 3. This cloud which before also did direct them now commeth somewhat nearer and sitteth upon the Tabernacle Novae hic gratiae accessio commendatur in certiore symbolo c. this accession of new grace and favour is commended by a more certaine and evident signe Calvin 4. This cloud before rested upon the other Tabernacle which Moses had removed without the campe but now the great Tabernacle being built the Lord doth chuse it as his seat Tostat. qu. 10. QUEST XI How the glorie of the Lord filled the Tabernacle THe glorie of the Lord filled the Tabernacle 1. The Lord giveth here a double testimonie of his presence for the approbation of this worke made by his appointment there was a cloud without and inâ—us splendor gloriae Dei within the brightsome glorie of God Gallass For so the Apostle calleth the shining of Moses face the glorie of his countenance 1. Cor. 3. Oleaster 2. By this was signified both the presence of Christ in his Church because this cloud filled the Tabernacle within and the Lords protection of his Church the cloud covered it without Marbach 3. And as the glorie of the Lord filled the Tabernacle so in Christ who is the true Tabernacle the Godhead dwelleth bodily and essentially Osiander 4. Though the glorie of the Lord filled the earthly Tabernacle yet his glorie remained still in heaven onely the Lord vouchsafed there a visible signe of his presence that they might know him to be neere unto them as often as he was called upon Calvine QUEST XII VVhy it pleased God to make the cloud a signe of his presence IT hath pleased God diversly to use the clouds as symboles and signes of his presence so he set his bow in the clouds as a signe of his favour he went before his people in a cloud Christ was transfigured in the mount in a bright cloud when he ascended a cloud tooke him out of their fight and he shall come againe in the clouds to judge the quicke and the dead 2. First as the cloud engendreth raine doth shelter from the heat of the Sun so Christ by the influence and raine of grace doth comfort his Church and protecteth it in the heat of persecution Simler Secondly as the fiâ—e heateth giveth light and purgeth so Christ by his Spirit worketh all these in his Church comforting illuminating and purifying the same Pelarg. QUEST XIII Why Moses could not enter into the Tabernacle Vers. 35. MOses could not enter into the Tabernacle because the cloud abode there c. 1. Tostatus confuting Lyranus who thinketh that Moses did not enter into the Tabernacle propter reverentiam because of the reverence of the place and not for that the thicke cloud did hinder his â—ight affirmeth the contrarie that Moses rather entred not because of the thicke cloud But seeing that this was a lightsome cloud and therefore is called the glorie of the Lord it was not the thicknes of the cloud that could have been an impediment to Moses he therefore rather forbeareth to enter of reverencâ— as when it was said unto him while the fire burned in the bush come not hither c. Exod. 3. 2. Moses entred into the thicke cloud in mount Sinai but here he cannot enter Pellican maketh this the reason because now Moses representeth the people of the Iewes to whom the glorie of the Lord in the Tâ—bernacle was as a cloud But he as well represented the person of the people when he went up to receive the Law for them therefore that is no reason The cause then is this Moses durst not ascend up unto God into the mount uncalled he waited six daies in the mount and the seventh the Lord called unto him chap. 24 16 at this time therefore it was not lawfull for Moses to come neere being not called or bidden so to doe Gallas 3. And by this meanes the Lord would have his Tabernacle afterward reverenced of all into the which Moses had no entrance at this time for the great glorie of the Lord as for the same cause at the dedication of Salomons Temple the glorie of the Lord so filled the house that the Priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud the glorious light whereof they could not endure And thus the Lord would have his house reverenced because of his presence 4. But the cloud did not alwaies thus fill the house but at this time the Lord did it to sanctifie the Tabernacle with his presence The cloud had three positions or places sometime it was within the Tabernacle then none could enter as heere and Numb 12. when the cloud stood at the doore of the Tabernacle when the Lord called to Aaron and Miriam or it rested upon the Tabernacle then Moses and Aaron might enter but the campe removed not but when the cloud was lift up altogether from the
the Tabernacle the Romanists would warrant their consecrating of Churches with oyle and other ceremonies and they hould it as a principle that it is not lawfull to say Masse in a Church not hallowed 2. By such ceremonies and rites they say religion and devotion is stirred up in mens minds 3. By such hallowing devils are expelled 4. Constantine when he had built a Chruch called thither the Nicene Fathers to consecrate it 5. Christ vouchsafed to be present at the dedication feast in Ierusalem Contra. As we condemne not a Christian dedication blessing and sanctifying of things without superstition as David dedicated his house which he had newly built Psal. 30. in the title which kind of sanctifying is done partly by prayer grounded upon Gods word as the Apostle sheweth 1 Timoth. 4.5 partly by the sober and right use of such things when they are employed to a good end as the Churches of Christians are hallowed and sanctified by the word of God and exercises of religion there used So yet such superstitious consecrations as with oyle tapers crossings and such like we utterlie condemne 1. There is no hallowing or sanctifying of any thing without the warrant of Gods word 1 Timoth. 4.5 but they have no word for such ceremonies to bee used 2. They make more account of their owne traditions than of Gods institution for every Priest may baptise but their Bishops onely hallow Churches 3. They commit idolatrie by this meanes in dedicating Churches to Saints and so take away part of Gods honour 4. They make these ceremonies a part of Gods worship and ascribe spirituall vertue unto them for they give indulgences and pardons of sinnes by the vertue of such hallowed Churches The former reasons are of no force 1. The typicall ceremonies of the Law such as was the anointing of the Tabernacle doe not bind us now they are abolished 2. True devotion and religion cannot be stirred up in the mind by humane rites and observations which are not grounded upon Gods word 3. By the same reason if by their anointing devils are driven out of Churches it were good that all houses and other places were anointed to drive away evill spirits but our Saviour sheweth that devils are cast out by prayer and fasting therefore not by such toyes 4. Constantines Church was consecrated by the prayers and thankesgiving of the Christian Bishops not by any such superstitious usages 5. The dedication of the Temple was a legall observation and concerneth us not now neither doth it follow because Christ observed it that it is to be kept still for he was also circumcised to shew his obedience to the Law Simlerus 3. Confut. That there is not in Orders imprinted an indeleble character Vers. 15. THe anointing shall bee a signe that the Priesthood shall be everlasting unto them Tostatus out of this place would inferre that in orders as likewise in Baptisme there is imprinted an indeleble character in the soule which can never be blotted out as these were but once anointed during their life to minister in the Priesthood qu. 4. Contra. 1. This place proveth no such thing for it is not spoken of the anointing of their persons which could be for no long continuance but of the anointing and consecrating of Aaron and his posteritie for the priesthood perpetually the anointing and consecrating of the Fathers could not print an indeleble character in their posteritie 2. This indeleble character or badge which they say is by Baptisme and Orders imprinted in the soule and can never be blotted out is but a device of their owne for what badge or marke of Iudas Apostleship could remaine when hee had betrayed his Master and manifestly shewed himselfe to be the child of perdition or what could be imprinted in Simon Magus soule by Baptisme of whom Saint Peter saith He had no part nor fellowship with them and his heart was not aright in the sight of God Act. 8.21 See more of this controversie Synops. Cont. 2. error 98. 4. Confut. Outward succession not alwaies required in the Ministerie Vers. 12. THou shalt bring Aaron and his sonnes c. The Romanists make this speciall exception against the Ministers of the Gospell that they can shew no lawfull succession which is required in an ordinarie calling nor yet miracles to prove their extraordinarie calling therefore they hold their calling to be none at all Contra. 1. Aaron was the Lords high Priest not by succession from any other but by consecration from Moses the civill governour at Gods appointment and so no doubt but Princes reformers of religion by their authoritie may establish Ministers and Preachers thereunto rightly called 2. Everie extraordinarie calling was not confirmed by signes as divers of the Prophets are not found to have wrought miracles 3. And though it were granted that the calling of the first Ministers of the Gospell were in respect of the manner extraordinarie yet because for the matter and doctrine it is not new but the same which the Apostles preached there need no miracles seeing the same faith was before ratified and sealed by the miracles wrought by the Apostles Simlerus See Synops. Centur. 1. err 20. 6. Morall observations 1. Observ. Not to come before the Lord without due preparation Vers. 31. THey washed their hands By this ceremonie was signified that none should assemble or draw neere unto God with impure and unwashen affections Oleaster As Moses also was bid to put off his shooes when hee drew neere unto the fire burning in the bush So the Apostle will have men to examine themselves before they come unto the Lords table 1 Cor. 11.28 2. Observ. Gods house is to be reverenced Vers. 34. THe glorie of the Lord filled the Tabernacle God shewed such glorious signes of his presence to the end his Tabernacle should be the more reverenced of all Marbach As Iacob said Gen. 28.17 How fearefull is this place this is none other than the house of God So David also saith Psal. 5.7 In thy feare will I worship toward thy holy Temple 3. Observ. The greater gifts one hath the more hee should humble himselfe Vers. 35. SO Moses could not enter Moses the more familiarly the Lord vouchsafed to speake unto tanto se humiliorem praebet c. sheweth himselfe so much the more modest and humble he will not presume to enter into the Tabernacle where Gods presence was though at other times the Lord had admitted him to familiar conference This example teacheth men that the more excellent gifts they have they should so much more shew themselves humble and lowly Gallas As Saint Paul though he laboured more than all the Apostles yet confesseth He was the least of the Apostles and not worthie to be called an Apostle Ves. 36. VVhen the cloud ascended the children of Israel went forward Oleaster hereupon giveth this good note Beatus homo quem direxeris Domine qui non se movet nisi signum ei ostenderis c. Happie
charge and government with Moses Num. 11. of which number were Eldad and Medad Gloss. interlinear But this cannot be for those seventy Elders were appointed after the campe was removed from Sinai and pitched in Kibrath Hattavah which was the next station beyond Sinai Numb 33.16 But now the Israelites remained at mount Sinai 2. Some are of opinion that these seventy Elders were appointed when Iethro gave counsell to Moses that is six out of every tribe which make 72. but the even number is set downe Simler But those Captaines over the people which were chosen according to Iethro his direction were heads over thousands hundreds and fifties chap. 18.25 they were then more than seventy 3. Neither were these seventy such as before time the people had chosen out for their Rulers answerable unto the number of soules that went downe with Iacob into Egypt as Calviâ— seemeth to thinke for it seemeth that before Iethro gave that advice to Moses there were no such Governours and Rulers over the tribes because Moses then needed not to have wearied himselfe in hearing their causes himselfe alone 4. Wherefore these were no speciall Elders that before were elected and chosen out but such as Moses did single out upon this occasion out of the more honourable sort of the people and therefore they are called vers 11. eetzilee separated or selected And Tostatus holdeth this as a reason because the word Elders ziene in the Hebrew hath no article set before it as is usuall in that language when any speciall persons of note are named But though his reason doe not alwayes hold yet his opinion seemeth of the rest to be most probable Tostat. qu. 3. QUEST III. Why Moses went up into the mount alone Vers. 2. ANd Moses himselfe alone shall come neere to the Lord c. 1. Here are three degrees or orders appointed to be observed in their comming neere unto God the people stand farre off and come not neere at all Aaron and his two sonnes and the seventy Elders ascend with Moses to some part of the mountaine but Moses himselfe only goeth up unto God vers 12. Calvin Lippoman 2. Rabanus maketh this morall application of it that as the seventy Elders went not up with Moses so unusquisque perpendat discrete vires suaâ— ut ultra non praesumat that every one doe discreetly examine his strength and not presume beyond his knowledge 3. For the mysticall sense Procopius maketh Aaron here a type of Christ who stood aloofe off and contemned not our humane nature sed descendens ad nos inter nos moratur but descending dwelt among us c. But this application can in no wise be fit that Aaron should be here a type of Christ who went not up unto God but Moses did for who should have freer accesse unto God than our Mediatour and intercessor therefore Moses here rather signifieth the Law which is perfect and pure in it selfe yet is not able to bring us to God as these ascended not with Moses but were left behind Simler QUEST IV. Whether all the people in generall were assembled Vers. 3. ANd all the people answered c. 1. Sometime the whole congregation is understood to be the Elders only and principall men that stand for the rest of the people as chap. 12.3 the Lord biddeth Moses to speake to all the congregation and yet he onely spake unto the Elders vers 21. But here we rather understand that all the multitude was called together for as we reade that when the Law was confirmed and ratified the whole assembly came together not only the Elders and Officers but even their children and wives yea the strangers unto the hewer of wood and drawer of water Deut. 29.10 11. so was it requisite that at the first receiving of the Law all the whole multitude should come together to give their generall consent 2. If it be objected that it was not possible that so many hundred thousand as there were in Israel could assemble in such sort to heare the voice of one man we may either say that God might give an extraordinary strength unto Moses voice that it might be heard round about Tostatus Or though all the people were not within hearing themselves at once yet one might receive it from another and so give their consent or one company might succeed another to heare Oleaster QUEST V. Why the Lord requireth the peoples consent to his Lawes Vers. 3. ALL that the Lord hath said will we doe 1. Though God might by his soveraigne right impose what Lawes he thought good without the peoples consent because they were bound to obey whatsoever the Lord commanded yet the Lord thought good to require their consent because otherwise they might be lesse culpable if they had not obeyed those Lawes which were thrust upon them against their will 2. And although they had twice before chap. 19.8 and 20.19 promised their obedience yet that was but in generall before the Lawes were published and therefore it was necessarie that a particular consent should be had now unto the severall Lawes which were propounded 3. God knew before they would consent but that was not sufficient unlesse they also expressed it themselves that they might afterward be left without excuse Tostat. 4. The people are to be commended for their readinesse but yet they knew not how impossible it was to keepe the Law and therefore cannot be excused of rashnesse Iun. Of this sudden promise of obedience which the Israelites had soone forgot Hierome thus writeth Melius est non promittere quam promissa non facere c. It had beene better for them not to have promised at all than not to performe their promise And Gregorie herein compareth the Jewes unto Locusts Subiâ—o saltuâ— daâ—tes protiâ—â—s ad 〈◊〉 codemes c. Which doe of a sudden give a spring and forthwith fall upon the ground againe QUEST VI. What Lawes they were which Moses wrote in a booke Vers. 4. ANd Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. 1. R. Salomon thinketh that Moses first rehearsed and afterward wrote the whole booke of Genesis and all Exodus unto this place But this cannot be 1. The Rabbin himselfe thinketh that Moses rose the next day and built the Altar how could he then write these two bookes without a great miracle in one day which we are not without great necessity to bring in to make or devise miracles where no cause is were great presumption Lyran. 2. It is said he wrote all the words of God and so consequently only the words of God but the history of Genesis and Exodus containe many things beside the words of God therefore there was no cause either to rehearse or write all the contents of these two bookes Tostatus 2. Cajetanes opinion is with whom consenteth Osiander that Moses did write all the former Lawes contained in the 21 22 23. chapters and the ten Commandements beside with all those Lawes set