time though not now 5. Confut. Adams sinne pardonable 5. WHereas we say that all sinnes are veniall to the faithfull and elect Bellarmine replieth that Adam committed a mortall and damnable sinne because it was said vnto him in what day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death lib. 1. de amiss grat c. 7. Ans. Wee say that though this sinne was damnable in it owne nature yet by Gods grace through Christ it was made veniall and pardonable to Adam unlesse Bellarmine say with the hereticke Taâ—iane that Adam was damned 6. Confut. Adam lost not his faith 6. BY this place also he would proove that Adam and Eve lost their saith because they beleeved not the sentence of God that they should die if they transgressed the commandement lib. 3. de amission great c. 6. Ans. This prooveth that they failed in faith not that their faith was utterly lost and extinguished for if Adam had no faith remaining to what purpose should God have propounded the promise of the Messiah to a faithlesse man Places of Exhortation 1. IN that God sanctified the Sabboth and rested therein from all his works he did it for our example that we therby should learne religiously to observe the Lords day 1. in abstaining from all bodily and servile workes 2. in keeping our selves undefiled and unspotted of all sinnefull works 3. in sanctifying it to holy exercises to the praise of God and our owne comfort 2 v. 7. In that God made man of the dust and put the breath of life into his nostrils man is here to learne humilitie by the consideration of his base and poore beginning and to remember how brittle his state is whose life is but a blast of the breath a puffe of the aire Isay 2.22 Cease from man whose breath is in his nostrils 3 Seeing that goodly garden of paradise replenished with such goodly plants and fruitfull trees is now destroyed and not to be found in earth we are taught to sequester our affections from all earthly delights and to seeke for a paradise much better in heaven 4 v. 15. Seeing man even in the state of his innocency was not to live idlely but God assigned him to keep the garden we are thereby admonished that now much more every man should occupie himselfe in some honest labour of a lawfull vocation 5 In that God made the woman out of man from whom shee had her beginning thereby is described the dutie of the wife to be obedient to her husband as her head and principall for whole cause shee was made 6 And seeing the woman is bone of mans bone and flesh of his flesh thereby the husband is put in remembrance to love tender and cherrish his wife even as his owne flesh 7. verse 18. It is not good for man to be alone in that God first taketh care to provide an helper for man before he saw his owne want and while Adam slept and thought nothing the Lord prepared him an helpe we see how Gods providence watcheth over us foreseeing for us many things which we see not our selves yea taking care for us while we sleep as it is in the Psalme Hee giveth his wel-beloved sleepe Psal. 127.3 Mercer CHAP. III. The Analysis or Method THis Chapter describeth the fall of man first his sinne and transgression from verse 1. to verse 9. then his punishment verse 9. to the end In their transgression is to be considered the tentation of Sathan verse 1. to verse 6. the seduction of the man and woman verse 6. thirdly the effects and fruits of their sinne verse 7 8. In Sathans temptation wee haue his subtill insinuation verse 1. the womans simple confession verse 2 3. the suggestion it selfe verse 4 5. In their seduction verse 6. first are set downe the inducements or provocation the goodnesse of the tree for meat the pleasantnesse to the eye the fruit thereof supposed to be knowledge then the pravarication or offence they did eat The effects of their transgression are shame which causeth them to cover their nakednesse verse 7. feare which maketh them to hide themselves verse 8. In the punishment there is first their conviction of the man and woman verse 9. to 14. then the malediction or curse denounced first then executed The sentence is denounced against the tempter or parties tempted The tempter is either the â—ccessary that is the serpent which was the instrument whose punishment is set forth verse 14. or the principall namely Sathan who is censured verse 15. The persons tempted first the woman is punished with sorrow in travaile subjection to her husband verse 16. secondly the man is judged the cause is first shewed his transgression verse 17. then his judgement in the cursing of the earth with thornes and thistles in cursing of man with misery in his life mortality in his end verse 19. The sentence lastly is executed in the expulsion of man out of Paradise verse 23. with the consultation going before verse 22. and his perpetuall exile from thence the Angels keepe the way to Paradise with a sword that Adam should not returne thither The difference of translations v. 1. the serpent was wisest S. wiser C. craftier than any beast cat heb gnarum subtill v. 1. yea hath God indeed said B. G. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quare wherefore hath God said S.H. it is true that God hath said Ch. quia because God hath said T.P. heb aph ci yea because Sathans abrupt beginning sheweth a long communication before and here hee giveth a reason as though God were not equall toward man in the prohibition c. v. 6. to be desired to get knowledge G.T.S. or to make one wise B. heb delightfull to behold aspectu delectabibile C.H. which was said before v. 8. the voice of the word of God C. the voice of God walking caet v. 8. in the coole of the day B.G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at noone S. ad auram post meridiem in the coole aire after noone H. ad ventum in the wind or aire of the day T.P.C. heb lervach haiom the soft wind brought Gods voice unto them v. 11. unlesse thou hast eaten c. S.H. hast thou eaten caeter v. 12. the woman which thou gavest to be with me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B.S.C. which thou gavest me G. gavest my fellow sociam H. allocasti didst place with me T. gâ—imads with me heb v. 15. he shall breake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 G.S. ipsa she shall H. it shall breake ipsum T.B.P. heb his it shall that is the seed he shall observe thee from the beginning thou shalt observe him to the end Ch. thou shalt lye in wait for his heele H. bruise his heele caet v. 16. thy desire toward thy husband T.B. subject to thy husband G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy turning to thy husband S.C. subpotestate under the power of thy husband H. heb to shuchah desire lust
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 Wise-man saith Say not thou I will recompence
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 and unregenerate are wholly sold over unto sinne and their
handle them roughly to bring them to knowledge and confession of their treachery against him so Christian governors should not put the Iewes to death but use them hardly by laying taxes and impositions upon them that at the length they may be brought to repentance for their blasphemies against Christ as it is in the Psalme Slay them not lest my people forget it but scatter them abroad by thy power Psal. 59.12 Rupert lib. 9. comment in Gen. cap. 4. 2. Doct. Where the feare of God is not there can be no true vertue Vers. 18. THis doe and live for I feare God c. Ioseph biddeth them bee secure of his sincere and true dealing with him because he feared God so that true religion is the fountaine of vertue and honest dealing they therefore that feare not God may for a while make a semblance and shew of honestie but it cannot be in truth where the ground of true religion is wanting where therfore the feare of God is not we cannot expect any vertuous action as Abraham reasoned with himselfe when he sojourned in Gerar The feare of God is not in this place and they will slay me for my wives sake Gen. 20.12 3. Doct. The guilt of sinne remaineth when the act is past Vers. 21. THey said one to another we have verily sinned against our brother By this wee learne that although the act of sinne be done and past yet the guilt and conscience of sinne may continue as here the sinne which they had committed against Ioseph 23. yeares before is revived Muscul. As the Lord said to Cain If thou doest not well sinne lieth at the doore Gen. 4.7 It lieth lurking in the doore of the conscience ready upon every occasion to assault us 4. Doct. The author of affliction it commeth not by chance Vers. 28. WHat is this that God hath done unto us These men having a guilty conscience thinke that God meeteth with them in every corner yet this good perswasion they have that nothing hapned to them by chance as this the finding of their mony in their sacks mouth but they ascribe all to Gods providence they make him the authour of their crosses and affliction Calvin As David in like manner saith that the Lord bid Shemei curse him 2 Sam. 16.11 5. Places of Confutation 1. Confut. Saint Pauls prophecie of some that should give eare to the doctrine of devils fulfilled in the Synagogue of Rome Vers. 6. THey bowed their face to the ground before him Here Iosephs brethren unwittingly doe fulfill Iosephs prophecie that they should fall downe unto him and doe him reverence like as the Jewes did ignorantly accomplish many things in the passion of Christ which were foretold by the Prophets So also they which in these dayes give eare to the doctrines of devils in the Romish and Antichristian Synagogue doe fulfill the prophecie of the Apostle 1 Tim. 4.1 some of them of ignorance and simplicity but their blinde guides of malice and obstinacie against the truth Muscul. 2. Confut. Against Purgatory Vers. 8. IOseph knew his brethren but they knew not him Augustine propounding this question how it came to passe that all this time of Iosephs prosperity he sent no word to Iacob but he continued still mourning for his sonne giveth this reason Quoniam sine istis minutis peccatis Iacob esse non potuit volens Deus illa parva peccata in hoc seculo igne tribulationis consumere c. Because Iacob could not be without some small sinnes God would by this meanes purge them with the fire of tribulation in this world serm 82. de tempor If small sinnes then which they call veniall bee purged in this world then there is nothing remaining to be cleansed in purgatory fire afterward which they say serveth to the purging not of mortall but veniall sinnes and indeed Iob well sheweth that our purgatory fire is in the affliction and sorrow of this life where he saith Exibo ut aurum I shall come forth like gold Iob 23.10 And the Prophet saith That the Lords fire is in Sion and his furnace at Ierusalem Isa. 31.9 it is not then in hell or Purgatory I much muse that Pererius alleaging this sentence of Augustine could not perceive how strongly it maketh against Purgatory 3. Confut. Against the swearing by Saints Vers. 15. BY the life of Pharaoh ye shall not goe hence c. Thomas Aquinas justifieth this fact of Ioseph in swearing by the life of Pharaoh and would warrant thereby the swearing by creatures as namely by Saints for an oath saith he is made two wayes by execration when some creature is produced that God should shew his judgement upon if one sweare falsly as when one sweareth by his head or such like the other way is by contestation either directly when the name of God is mentioned or indirectly when some creature is named in whom the truth should be manifested so we sweare by the Gospell wherein Gods truth is expressed by Saints that beleeved in the truth so Ioseph sware by Pharaoh a minister of Gods truth and justice Thom. 2.2 qu. 89. ar 6. Conâ—ra 1. This subtill disputer doth justifie that kinde of oath which is directly forbidden by our Saviour himselfe as to sweare by the head Matth. 5.36 Neither shalt thou sweare by thine head wee may justly suspect him in the rest when at the first he dare controll the holy doctrine of the Gospell 2. Men use not to sweare by the Gospell but upon it when they lay their hands upon the book for so we reade that the Saints have used some visible ceremonie and rite in taking an oath as Abrahams servant layed his hand upon his masters thigh Gen. 24.3 Iacob did sweare unto Laban upon an heape of stones but neither did the one sweare by his masters thigh nor the other by the stones but by the name of God Gen. 24.3 Gen. 31.53 Iacob sware by the feare of his father Isaack after the same manner is a booke used as a visible object for further evidence in the ministring of an oath but Saints are neither visible nor present and therefore the case is not alike 3. It is also directly forbidden to sweare by any but by the Lord Deut. 6.13 Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and serve him and sweare by his name and though onely be not here found yet our Saviour so interpreteth Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Matth. 4.10 and so consequently by him onely shalt thou sweare 4. Concerning Iosephs act I have shewed before quest 9. that although it may be somewhat qualified and extenuated yet it cannot be justified but it savoureth somewhat of the Egyptian manners and seemeth to be against that place Zephan 1.5 where the Prophet reproveth those that sweare by the Lord and sweare by Malcham that is their King whether they made the idoll or a mortall man their King both abuses are here reproved 6. Places of
hee were rude in speech yet he was not so in knowledge 2. Cor. 11.6 the power of S. Pauls speech consisted not in eloquence of words but in the wisdome of the spirit so Moses though defective in the manner of elocution yet might speake with gravity and wisdome and so bee powerfull in words 9. Wherefore notwithstanding this or what else is objected the most probable opinion is that Moses had some naturall impediment of speech as appeareth both by his owne excuse by the Lords answer by the coadjutorship of Aaron his brother an eloquent man vers 14. and because Moses after this saith he was a man of uncircumcised lips and whereas he saith here nor since thou hast spoken to thy servant his meaning is that if at this time when God spake unto him who was able to take away all impediment of speech yet his infirmity remained much more was it like afterward to continue Iunius QUEST VIII How God is said to make the deafe and dumbe Vers. 11. WHo hath made the dumb or the deafe 1. Wee refuse here the fables of the Hebrewes that when Pharaoh had appointed one to kill Moses he was striken blind that he could not see Moses and Pharaoh became both deafe and dumbe that though he espied Moses escape yet hee could not speake to have him stayed but it is evident by the story that Moses fled before hee was apprehended The Lord here speaketh in generall not of any one dumbe or deafe but that as hee sendeth these infirmities upon man so also hee is able to heale them 2. And although these infirmities are evill in respect of nature yet God is the author of them because they are good also in respect of the end which is to humble man and bring him to repentance and to set forth the glory of God as our Saviour saith of the blind man that his blindnesse came that the workes of God might be shewed upon him Simler QUEST IX How and wherefore the Lord was present with Moses mouth Vers. 12. I Will be with thy mouth 1. Although Moses was no eloquent man in outward speech as humane eloquence is accounted yet there was in him a grave and divine eloquence such as the Apostles were endued with the Lord promiseth the assistance of his spirit and to bee present with his mouth 2. But the impediment of his tongue the Lord doth not altogether take away both that Gods glory and power might appeare and that Moses should see how needfull the helpe and society of his brother was neither did Moses pray unto God to heale that infirmity but only useth it as an argument to decline his calling Simler QUEST X. Whom Moses meaneth that he would have sent Vers. 13. SEnd by the hand of him whom thou shouldest send 1. Lyranus thinketh that Moses meaneth his brother Aaron who was elder than he and fitter for his eloquent speech but no mention was made yet of Aaron whom Moses knew not to be alive as may be gathered vers 18. till the Lord first spake of him and promised hee should assist him 2. Rabbi Selomo taketh that hee meaneth Iosuah whom God revealed unto him should be the man that was to lead Israel into the promised land But beside that Iosuah is not yet spoken of this request of Moses would have shewed some emulation or envy toward Iosuah 3. Many of the ancient writers as Iustenus Martyr Tertullian Cyprian with others thinke that Moses here speaketh of the Messias that should be sent into the world so also Perer. But this seemeth not to be so fit both for that Moses not being ignorant of the prophesie of Iacob concerning the comming of Shiloh and how the Lord promised that he would raise up a Prophet like unto him Deus 18.18 which is understood of Christ could not yet expect the comming of the Messiah and this request for the comming of the Messiah proceeding of faith would not have provoked the Lords wrath Therefore Eugubinus opinion though Pererius checkt him for it is not herein to be misliked that neither would have those places of Scripture which are understood of the Messiah to bee referred to others for that savoureth of Judaisme nor yet that which is spoken of others to be applied to Christ which also would bewray curiosity and superstition 4. Therefore the plaine meaning of Moses is that wheâ—â—as God might find out many more fit than himselfe he would send by their hand that is ministery so he aimeth not at any one in particular to be sent but any other whosoever QUEST XI Whether Moses sinned in his so often refusall seeing God was angry with him Vers. 14. THen Iehovahs wrath was kindled 1. Neither doe we consent to some Hebrewes that doe aggravate Moses sinne as distrusting Gods word and therefore some say hee was punished in being deprived of the Priesthood which was given to Aaron some in that he was not suffered to enter into the land of Canaan Contr. But neither was the first a punishment for Moses still was the chiefe and gave Aaron direction and it was a comfort to Moses to have such a coadjutor and beside Aaron was the elder to whom the priesthood appertained Neither was Moses offence here the cause why he entred not into the land of Canaan but his disobedience at the waters of strife Simler 2. Neither on the other side is their opinion found that doe justifie Moses herein and commend his humility in refusing so weighty a calling as Gregorie who by Pauls example would have us ready to suffer adversities and by Moses to refuse prosperity And Hierome commendeth Esaâ—es readinesse after his lippes were purified and Moses unwillingnesse being guilty to himselfe of his owne infirmity Contra. 1. In that God was angrie with Moses it is evident he offended 2. And as S. Paul was willing to suffer adversity because it was Gods will the spirit so testified every where of him that bands and persecution did abide him so Moses should not have refused this charge seeing God so often had signified his will unto him 3. And if Esay did well after the Lord had purged his lippes being before unwilling to shew his readinesse then Moses did not well who after the Lord had promised to be with his mouth yet still persisted in his refusall 3. Thostatus granteth that Moses sinned yet it was a veniall and small sinne because wee reade of 〈◊〉 punishment that followed Cajetanus is of the same opinion and his reason is taken from the phrase here used The wrath of God was kindled as when a man is moved suddenly of choller than of set purpose Contra. In some sense we confesse that both this and all other of Moses sinnes and of all the elect are veniall in respect of Gods mercie in Christ that pardoneth them but otherwise in it owne nature neither this nor any other sinne is pardonable for the wages of sinne is death Rom. 6.23 in the justice of God 2.
wine wherein is excesse Ephes. 5.18 Contrarie hereunto are 1. Intemperance in meats and drinks as in drunkennesse and gluttonie 2. Facesse and superfluitie of meats and drinkes which breedeth intemperance as also excesse and pride of apparell reproved by the Prophet in the daughters of Sion Isai. 3. and other unseemely usages of the bodie as in painting or colouring the face or haire as wicked whorish Ieâ—abel used to doe 2 King 9.30 3. Contrarie unto this moderate temperance is in another extreme superstitious and immoderate abstinence such as was that of the Heremites and Anachorites that with too rigorous abstinence and fasting did oppresse nature Vrsin 4. As in temperance in diet is forbidden as the nourishing cause of lust so also in all other kind of behaviour as the wantonnes of the eye which opened as it were a window unto that great sinne of adulterie which David committed with Bathsheba 2 Sam. 12. Likewise obscenitie and vncomelinesse in speech for evill words corrupt good manners 1 Cor. 15.33 Simler But these two last rehearsed are rather opposite unto the second vertue of shamefastnesse before rehearsed 3. Places of Controversie 1. Confut. Against the Anabaptists and Nicolaitans which make their wives common THou shalt not commit adulterie c. First seeing this precept commandeth chastitie in the married estate to be preserved the Nicolaitans and heretikes called Gnostici are condemned which as of other things brought in a filthie communitie and mutual commixtion of their wives Bucanus Contrarie to the Apostles doctrine To avoid fornication let every one have his wife 1 Cor. 7.2 that is the wife ought to bee proper and peculiar to the husband and the husband likewise to the wife for the honour of mariage is stained when the mariage bed is defiled and therefore the Apostle putteth them both together Heb. 13.4 2. Confut. Against the Maniches and Marcionites that condemne mariage FUrther this Commandement forbidding the violating of mariage by adulterie and all other uncleane and unlawfull lust consequently alloweth the wholesome remedie of mariage against the old heretikes the Maniches Encratites Marcionists Chrysost. hom 12. in 1 Timoth. Ambrose addeth to these the Patritians in 1 Tim. 4. that condemned mariage as being instituted of Satan whose wicked opinion is blasphemous against God upon whose blessing Increase and multiplie dependeth the procreation of children which is the speciall fruit of mariage And they contradict the holy Apostle who saith That marriage is honorable c. Hebr. 13.4 3. Confut. Against the Romanists that forbid Mariage THirdly the Romanists are here confuted that enjoyne single life unto their Priests as more agreeable unto their orders which they thinke are defiled and polluted by mariage and they count that to bee the more holy state among them and such to bee most religious which are entred into a vow of single life so that although they doe not in open blasphemie condemne marriage as the other wicked heretikes which made the devill the author thereof yet they speake falshood through hypocrisie and under pretence of greater holinesse condemne the holy institution of marriage so that they cannot escape the censure of the Apostle which calleth it a doctrine of devils to forbid to marrie 1 Tim. 4.1.3 Neither can they shift it off by saying that they doe not forbid mariage generally no more did the Maniches who allowed their hearers such as were lay men to marrie but denied that libertie to their Clergie whom they called their elect and chosen men August hares 46. And the Heretickes called Apostolici would not permit such to marrie as had made a vow of single life being not able to performe it August hares 61. So the Romanists hold it unlawfull for their votaries to marrie though they bee never so weake and unable to performe their vow It is evident then that whereas S. Paul giveth libertie to everie man for avoiding of fornication to have his wife 1 Cor. 7.2 and againe he saith that mariage is honorable among all men Hebr. 13.4 the practice of the Romanists not allowing their Clergie and Monkes to marrie doth contradict the Apostolical doctrine And beside by this restraint of marriage they give occasion of adulterie fornication and other uncleane lusts seeing they restraine the remedie against these enormities which is lawfull and honest marriage and so they are apparent transgressors of this precept Herein they are not unlike to those old Heretickes called Origeniani turpes the filthie Origenists who as Epiphanius writeth of them rejected marriage and yet gave themselves to lust and some of them went in the habit of Monks professing solitarie life and yet were defiled with uncleannesse Epiphan hares 63. Such were the Monks in Poperie given over to al filthinesse as their hypocrisie was notably discovered in the suppression of their uncleane cages and cells here in England See more hereof Synops. pag. 260 261 c. 4. Confut. Against Aquinas that saith in the matrimoniall copulation there may be mortall sinne HEre by the way some exception is to be taken unto certaine positions of Thomas Aquinas who confuting those who affirmed Commixtionem viri uxoris non esse sint peccato that the companying of the husband with the wife could not bee without sinne setteth downe these conclusions 1. That 〈◊〉 conjunctio aliquando non solum est sine peccato sed etiam ad meritum vita â—ternae that such conjunction is sometime not only without sinne but meritorious also of eternall life 2. Quando est cum intentione procrâ—anda prolis vel reddendi debiti c. when in the matrimoniall act there is an intention of procreation or of rendring the mutuall debt of marriage it is an act of justice and so without sin at all 3. Aliquando est cum peccato veniali c. somtime it hath a veniall or small sin as when neither of the two former intendments do concurre 4. Quando autem excedit ut si posset se extenderet in alium tunc est mortale c. but when this matrimoniall copulation exceedeth the bounds that if it might bee it would extend it selfe to another then it is mortall Thomas in opuscul Contra. 1. No act of righteousnesse in man can be meritorious of eternall life seeing our best workes are imperfect and betweene the merit and worke there must be a proportion and kinde of equalitie but so there cannot bee betweene our imperfect workes and such a perfect and infinite reward The Apostle saith That the afflictions of this present life are not worthie of the glorie which shall be shewed unto us Rom. 8.18 If the suffrings of the Saints are not meritorious much lesse their actions 2. When matrimoniall conjunction is applied to the right end it is without sinne as S. Paul saith in the like case Let him doe what hee will he sinneth not 1 Cor. 7.36 that is materially he sinneth not the thing which hee doth is no 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 say wee are delivered though wee have done all these
concupiscence is not sinne whose objections were these 1. Object Such things as are naturall are not evill but concupiscence is naturall therefore it is not evill nor consequently sinne Answ. This argument must be answered by a distinction for by naturall here may be understood that which was made naturall in man by creation before his fall and so the proposition is true but the assumption is false for inordinate concupiscence and appetite was not in man before his fall or it is taken for that which is now incident to mans corrupt nature since his fall and so the assumption is true but the proposition false 2. Object Even in our nature as it now standeth corrupt the appetite or desire to such things as tend to the conservation of nature and to decline and shun the contrarie are not evill but such is the concupiscence to meat and drinke and such like Ergo. Answ. 1. Such motions and appetites of themselves are not evill as they are naturall motions but if they be inordinate motions and exceed a just measure they are evill as to have an immoderate desire to meat or drinke For as it was naturall in Eve to desire to eat of the fruit of the tree yet to desire it against the Commandement of God was evill so is it with these naturall motions if they bee immoderate and inordinate they are evill 2. There are other concupiscences beside these which are neither naturall nor tending to the conservation of nature as coveting another mans house or wife c. which can have no such excuse or pretenâ—â— 3. Object That which is not in mans power to avoid is no sinne but not to covet is not in mans power Ergo it is no sinne Answ. 1. The proposition is false for sinne is not measured by the necessitie or libertie of nature but by the disagreement which it hath with the will of God 2. When God first printed the law in mans nature before his fall then were the precepts of God given unto man in his power to keepe though man by his voluntarie corruption hath lost his power and libertie yet God forgoeth not his power and right of commanding 4. But that concupiscence is sinne it is both evident by this law that would not forbid it unlesse it were sinne and by the Apostle who useth the same argument I had not knowne sinne but by the law for I had not knowne lust except the law had said Thou shalt not lust Rom. 7.7 Vrsin 2. Confut. Against the Papists that denie concupiscence to be sinne in the regenerate SEcondly the Papists are herein Semipelagians who generally affirme and hold that concupiscence remaining after baptisme is not properly sinne nor forbidden by commandement Rhemist 〈◊〉 Rom. 6. sect 6. So was it decreed in the Tridentine Synode that concupiscence non est vere proprie peccatum in renatis is not verily and properly a sinne in the regenerate but that it is so called quia ex peccato est in peccatum inclinat because it commeth of sinne and inclineth to sinne Session 1. cap. 1. They object thus 1. Object Sinne maketh men guiltie before God of eternall death but the regenerate are not guiltie of eternall death therefore concupiscence in them is no sinne Answ. 1. By this reason there shall bee no sinne at all in the regenerate for there is no condemnation at all to them that are in Christ Jesus 2. Neither concupiscence nor any sinne else shall condemne the regenerate but that is not because concupiscence is no sinne but that both it and all other sinnes are pardoned in Christ and so not imputed 2. Object Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme therefore concupiscence in the regenerate is no sinne Answ. Originall sinne is not simply taken away in Baptisme but onely quoad reatum in respect of the guilt and as the Schoolmen say it is taken away formally in Baptisme but not materially There are two things to be considered in originall sinne the disagreement or repugnancie which it hath with the law of God and the guilt of the punishment This latter way originall sinne is remitted and released in Baptisme it shall never be laid unto the charge of the faithfull as S. Paul saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen Rom. 8.33 But the other remaineth still in Gods children as S. Paul confesseth of himselfe Rom. 7.23 I see another law in my members rebelling against the law of my minde but yet though it remaine and have a being in the faithfull it doth not reigne in them as the same Apostle exhorteth Rom. 6.12 Let not sinne reigne in your mortall bodie 3. But that concupiscence is sinne in the very regenerate it is evident by this precept Thou shalt not covet which commandement is given generally to all both the regenerate and unregenerate S. Paul also calleth the rebellion of his flesh which he felt in himselfe being now regenerate the law of sinne Rom. 7.23.25 And the Apostle speaketh to men regenerate when he saith Be renewed in the spirit of your minds Ephes. 4.23 which renovation needed not if concupiscence in them were no sinne 4. But that place of Augustine will bee objected Quamvis insint dum sumus in corpore mortis hujus peccati desideria c. Although while we are in the bodie of this death there be in us the desire of sinne yet if we should give assent to none of them non esset unde diceremus c. dimitte debita nostra we should have no cause to say to our heavenly Father Forgive us our debts c. August epist. 200. Answ. 1. Augustine must be understood to speake of actuall sinnes that if so men had grace never to consent to their concupiscence they should not need to pray for remission of such sinnes 2. And who is there that liveth who sometime is not carried away with concupiscence to give assent unto it So that if Augustine should speake generally of all sinne yet his speech being conditionall if we should give assâ—â— to none of them and that condition being kept of none this proveth not concupiscence not to bee sinne See more of this controversie Synops. Centur. 4. err 16. 3. Confut. That no concupiscence is a veniall sinne in it selfe THirdly Thomas Aquin his assertion commeth here to be examined Not a quòd cupiditas tunâ— est peccatum mortale quando sine ratione c. Note that concupiscence is then mortall sinne when as the things of our neighbours are coveted without reason but when they are reasonably desired it is veniall Thomas in opuscul Contra. 1. This distinction of mortall and veniall sinnes being understood in their sense that some sinnes in the condition and qualitie thereof are mortall some veniall is contrarie to the Scripture which maketh death the wages of sinne Rom. 6.23 that is of all but to the faithfull through Gods grace all sinnes are veniall and shall never be laid unto their charge and so
verse the negative particle lo not must be supplyed which is but once in the beginning of the verse expressed This interpretation we preferre before either that of the Hebrewes 1. who referre this verse to that which followeth and joyne it not with that which goeth before but make this sense that as yet there were no plants or herbs that appeared above the earth but lay yet hid till God sent raine whereby the earth was prepared for the creation of man and the plants watered so R. Sel. But this is a vaine conceit for upon the third day trees were made which appeared above the earth and the earth having beene so lately covered with the waters was yet moist enough 2. Either that of Eugubinus who saith it rained the second day and then the plants were brought forth the third for upon the second day the waters were gathered together from covering the earth so that no raine was then needfull 3. Mercerus distinguisheth the times the 5. verse hee understandeth of the first growing of the plants in the creation which was done without raine or dew but the 6. verse hee referreth to that ordinary course which God appointed afterward by dewes and raines to refresh the earth 4. Musculus will have the 6. verse of the ascending of vapours to be understood of the very time of creation that God used those helps of nature but this were to tye God unto meanes wherefore I take it with Iunius to be an explanation of the former verse that it had neither yet rained nor any mist had ascended when God onely by his word caused the plants to grow out of the earth this is the exposition of R. Saadia which Kimâ—i preferreth before all the rest QVEST. IX Whether Paradise were terrestriall Vers. 8. THe Lord planted a garden eastward in Eden c. Hierome readeth for eastward à principiâ— from the beginning whereas the word is Kedem the East translated by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that Hieromes conceit that God made Paradise before the heaven and earth tradit in 2. gen is grounded upon the false interpretation of this place and how could Paradise which was upon the earth be planted before the earth was founded 2. Their conceit is removed that imagine Paradise to bee no terrene or corporall place but to be spiritually understood as Philo lib. de mund opâ—fic and Origen whom Epiphanius confuteth by this reason that where there are true rivers as Euphrates which is confessed of all to bee one of the rivers of Paradise where were also very trees and plants there Paradise must bee a terrestriall place epist. ad Ioann Hierosâ—l 3. Neither can the whole earth be taken for Paradise as some have thought because it is said here to bee planted in Eden which was the name of a speciall country Esech 27.23 Harah Canneth Eden are joyned together QVEST. X. Where Paradise was situate LIkewise for the situation of Paradise 1. it was neither in a remote place beyond the Ocean which opinion is attributed to Ephrem 2. nor a place higher than all the earth Damasc. lib. 2. de fid orthodox c. 14. 3. nor next unto heaven as Rupertus de Trinitat c. 37. 4. nor reaching up to the Moone as some other have imagined 5. nor in the aire though not so high as the Moone as Alexander Hales and Tostatus 6 nor under the Equinoctiall Bonavent in 2. senten c. 17. for these rivers Tigris and Euphrates which flowed out of Paradise and the country Eden where Paradise was came not neare the Equinoctiall and they are knowne to be in Asia not in any remote and unknowne countrey in earth not in the aire or next to the Moone All these are ridiculous childish fancies and need no long confutation QVEST. XI Of the tree of life Vers. 9. THe tree of life c. 1. This was a visible tree planted in the midst of Paradise in a visible place not spiritually or allegorically to be understood as Origen thinketh 2. neither is it called the tree of life because it was able to give immortality and to preserve from death for ever as Tostatus or onely because it was able to preserve man from death till such time as hee should bee translated to immortality as Scotus in 2. lib. sent dist 19. qu. 1. and Thomas with others 4. Neither need it bee disputed whether the tree of life had this power to preserve from death by a supernaturall gift as Bonaventure or by a naturall faculty as Hugo Thomas Pererius upon this place 5. For it is evident that this tree had no power to give immortality at all by the taste of the fruit thereof 1. because that no corruptible food can make the body incorruptible but the fruit of this tree could not nourish nature without corruption and alteration and without nourishment it could not give life to the body 2. Againe man had by his creation power given him to dye if he had not sinned wherfore immortality was the gift of his creation not effect of the eating of the tree 3. And if it could have giveÌ„ immortality it must have had a power to preserve from sin for by sinning man became mortall so that if it could not defend him from sin it was no more the tree of life in regard of the effect than any other tree of the garden for if he had not sinned he should not have dyed what fruit soever he had eaten of that only tree of knowledge of good and evill excepted 6. Then our opinion is this that it was called the tree of life not so much for the operation though we confesse it might give strength and vertue also to the body Mercer but chiefly for the signification because it was both a signe of life received from God and a symbole of Christ who is our true life and herein we approve rather the opinion of Augustine Eugubinus in Cosmopeia who thinketh it was called the tree of life not effective but significative not effectually but significatively as a signe of true immortality which he should receive of God if he continue in obedience First it is the tree of life as the other was of knowledge of good and evill which was not so called because it gave knowledge but was a seale unto them of their miserable knowledge which they should get by experience in their transgression Magister lib. 3. distinct 17. therefore the tree of life must be so called because it was a seale and pledge of life secondly thus the Scripture significatively and simbolically expoundeth the tree of life Prov. 5.18 Wisdome which is Christ is a tree of life Revel 2.7 To him that overcommeth will I give to eat of the tree of life see more of this Synops 17. cont err 5. QVEST. XII Of the tree of knowledge of good and evill vers 9. THe tree of knowledge of good and evill First we affirme that this was a visible materiall tree not
inquired when this sentence began to take place that in what day soever Adam did eat of the tree he should dye the death 1. Some thinke that a day is not here to bee taken according to mans account of dayes but as it is before God with whom a thousand yeares are but as a day and so Adam died within a thousand yeares after so Iustinus dialog cum Triph. but this sense seemeth to bee strained 2. Neither doe we refer these words in what day soever to the first clause only thou shalt eat and not to the second thou shalt dye the death as though the meaning should not bee they should dye the same day wherein they did eat but at any time after for this seemeth also to be but a forced sense 3. But we rather allow Hieromes interpretation that Adam began in the same day to dye not actually but because then he became mortall and subject to death lib. tradit in Gen. so Symmachus readeth thou shalt bee mortall 4. And beside that then actualâ—y Adam entred into misery and sorrow labour hunger thirst which are the forerunners of death 5. Adde unto this also that in the same day death entred by sinne into the soule of Adam in the very same day of his transgression QVEST. XXX Whether God made death THirdly seeing that by Gods sentence death seased upon Adam the question is whether God made death and whether this corporall death be a punishment of sin We answer 1. that as death is a defect of nature beside the first intention of the Creator brought in by sinne into the world that God is not the â—uthor of it but it is so only the fruit and effect of sinne 2. But as death is a just punishment inflicted for sinne so it is of God who though hee first made not death yet now hee disposeth of it thereby shewing his justice upon mans transgression so that as Augustine saith speaking of the beginning of darkenesse Deus non fâ—â—â—t tenebras sâ—dâ—rdinavit God made not darknesse but ordered them so may it bee said of death 3. Eugubiâ—us objecteth that death is not properly a punishment of sinne because it remaineth in the faithfull and it is not taken away by Christ. in Cosmopeia To which we answer 1. That death also at the last shal be destroyed by Christ 1 Cor. 15.26 The last enemy that shal be destroied is death 2. That although the death of the body remaine yet in the members of Christ in them it is not now as a punishment but as a consequent of their corruptible nature because all flesh is now as grasse Isa. 40.6 and death now unto them is not a curse but turned to a blessing in Christ being both a cessation from labâ—ur and an entrance into rest Rev. 14.13 Blessed are they that dye in the Lord they rest from their labours and their workes follow them QVEST. XXXI Why it was not good for man to be alone Vers. 18. IT is not good for man to be alone 1. not as R. Sâ—l left if man would have beene alone hee might be thought to be chiefe Lord in earth as God was in heaven for if man had beene alone who should have so thought or spoken 2. Neither was it not good in respect of God who by his infinite power and wisdome could otherwayes have multiplyed and increased man but in respect of that order and course of generation which God appointed for other creatures 3. Neither is this so said as though no man could live without a woman as the Hebrewes have these sayings nothing is good but a woman â—e that hath not a wife is not a man for God hath given unto some a speciall gift which may supply this want 4. Neither is S. Paul contrary to Moses where he saith it is not good to touch a woman for he speaketh in respect of those present times of persecution wherein their wives might have beene a let unto them Mercer 5. But this is so said 1. in respect of mutuall society and comfort 2. in respect of the propagation of the world 3. especially for the generation and increase of the Church of God 4. but most of all it was meet that woman should bee joyned to man because of the promised seed of the woman of whom came our Saviour Christ after the flesh QVEST. XXXII Wherein woman was a meet helpe for him Vers. 18. LEt us make an helpe meet for him The word cenâ—gdâ— signifieth as one before him or against him But we neither allow the conceit of some Hebrewes as R. Sâ—lamon that the woman is said to be against man because she is contrary to him 2. Nor yet doe wee like of Tostatus conjecture because the male and female in respect of their naturall parts are contrary 3. Nor yet doe wee approve David Kimchi his collection that the woman is said to bee as before man that is as a servant to attend vpon him for shee is appointed to bee his fellow-helper not his servant neither is it like that if shee had beene ordained to any base use or service that she should have beene framed out of Adams side 4. Therefore shee is called a helpe like to man as Hierome readeth or according to him as the Septuagint or as before him as the Hebrew both because shee was made like unto man as well in proportion of body as in the qualities of the mind being created according to the image of God as also for that she was meet for man necessary for the procreation education of children and profitable for the disposing of houshold affaires 5. This maketh a manifest difference betweene woman which is alwayes before man cohabiting and conversing with him and other females which after their copulation forsake their males Luther QVEST. XXXIII When the woman was formed A Further doubt is moved by some at what time the woman was made where 1. wee reject the conceit of Cajetanus who making an allegory of this story of the framing of the woman out of Adams side is forced to affirme that God made man and woman together upon the sixth day and not the woman out of the man for thus the history of Moses is called into question and as well may the whole discourse of the creation of the world be allegorised as this narration of the making of woman And again it is contrary to the Apostle who saith that the woman was of the man 1 Cor. 11.9 2. We likewise refuse the opinion of Catharinus who thinketh the woman to have been made the seventh day for this also is contrary to the Scripture Exod. 20.11 In six dayes the Lord made heaven and earth the sea and all that in them is 3. So then we hold that the woman was made of a rib out of Adams side as Moses setteth it downe neither made together with him out of the earth nor yet made so long after him upon the seventh day but she was formed upon the sixâ—h day
Neither was this sinne of Moses veniall that is a light and small sinne for such sinnes the Lord passeth over in his children but here he was angry with Moses If the Lord should bee angry with every small sinne and oversight of his children who should abide it 3. The forbearing of punishment sheweth not the smalnesse of the sinne but the greatnesse of Gods mercie 4. Cajetanes observation is false for the same phrase â—ichar aph Iehovah Iehovahs wrath was kindled is used upon occasion of great sinnes as when the people murmured Numb 11.3 and lusted for quailes vers 33. the same words are there put 4. This then may safely be held that although Moses at the first might in humility disable himselfe yet after God had given him satisfaction to all his doubts upon his foure severall refusals first for his owne insufficiencie and the greatnesse of the businesse Chap. 3.11 Secondly because they might inquire after Gods name Chap. 3.14 Thirdly he excuseth himselfe by the incredulity of the people Lastly by his owne imperfection of speech yet after all this to stand still upon his refusall sheweth no small infirmitie in Moses as it may appeare by the effect because God was angrie with him yet Gods anger is not such against his children as against the wicked for there he is angry and punisheth here he is angrie and rebuketh but withdraweth not his favour for immediatly the Lord concurreth with Moses desire and giveth him his brother to be his assistant Simler So that Gods anger here is as when the father is angrie with his child or one friend with another which notwithstanding is no breach of friendship QUEST XII Why Aaron is called the Levite Vers. 14. AAron thy brother the Levite 1. This is not added because the Priesthood should have belonged to Moses the Leviticall order to Aaron but that Moses was deprived of that honour for refusing his calling as Rabbi Salomon Pellican 2. But because there might bee other Aarons not of Levie this is expressed by way of distinction that Moses might know that the Lord did meane none other Aaron but his owne naturall brother of Levi Iun. Simler 3. And this might bee also a reason thereof because the Lord purposed to annex the Priesthood to Aaron and his posteritie Osiander QUEST XIII How Moses is said to be as God to Aaron Vers. 16. THou shalt bee to him in Gods stead This sheweth 1. that Moses should bee superior unto Aaron as his Prince as the Chalde Paraphrast and Aaron as his Chancelor Moses should give him direction from God what to speake Osiander 2. By this also Moses authority is signified by the which as in Gods place he ordained Aaron to be the high Priest Pellican 3. Likewise he is as God that is a wise counsellor and full of Gods spirit to whom Aaron should resort for counsell Vatab. Genevens 4. And as Aaron was Moses spokesman to the people so Moses should bee Aarons mouth to consult with God so the Septuagint and Latine read Thou shalt be for him in those things which appertaine to God 5. But Moses in another sense is said to bee Pharaohs God Exod. 7.1 not only to declare Gods will unto him but to execute Gods judgements upon him Genevens QUEST XIV Whether Moses did well being called of God in taking his leave of his father in law Vers. 18. THerefore Moses went and returned to Iethro 1. Some doe charge Moses here with an oversight that he presently dispatched not into Egypt but first tooke his leave of his father in law for Iacob went away without Labans privity and S. Paul saith that hee did not consult with flesh and bloud after he was called Galath 1. 2. Contra these examples are altogether unlike for Laban was unfriendly to Iacob and he feared he would worke him some displeasure and Iacob was then at his owne hand and kept sheepe for himselfe and beside he had in a manner sold over his daughters to Iacob and used them as strangers But Moses had a kinde and loving father in law he then kept his sheepe as hee covenanted and he entertained Zipporah still as his daughter and therefore Moses could not in humanity but take his leave of him 3. S. Paul consulted not with any for the approbation of his calling being therefore fully assured neither doth Moses conferre with Iethro to any such end but only to performe the office of humanity Simler 4. Wherefore the calling of God doth not take away civill duties toward parents and kindred saving where they are an impediment to our calling in which case wee are rather to forsake father and mother than to disobey God 5. Moses therefore taketh his leave of Iethro both because he purposed to carry away his wife and children and for that he had before covenanted to stay with Iethro chap. 2.21 Ferus QUEST XV. Why Moses concealed from Iethro the principall end of his going LEt me goe and returne to my brethren 1. Moses concealeth from his father in law the principall cause of his journey which was the calling of God both for that he sought Gods glorie and not his owne Ferus lest he should have seemed to boast of his visions Osiander and he doth keepe it secret of modesty least he might be thought to be a vaine man in telling such incredible things 2. In saying he went to see whether his brethren were alive and to visite them he dissembleth not though he went to doe more and it is evident by taking his wife and children with him that Iethro knew hee purposed not only to visite them but to stay there so that it seemeth likely that Moses imparted so much of his purpose concerning his stay there Simler and in generall also that he went for the comfort and profit of his brethren as Iosepus but in particular he kept secret the end of his going 3. Iethro being a good man would not hinder so charitable a worke though he had speciall use of him Ferus especially having such experience of the fidelitie and wisedome of Moses that without great cause he knew he would not desire to depart from him Simler QUEST XVI Whether God spake to Moses in Midian beside that vision in Horeb. Vers. 19. ANd Iehovah said to Moses 1. Some thinke that this sentence is transposed and that God thus spake unto Moses before he had moved his father in law Genevens Pellican But although such transposing of the order be usuall in Scriptures yet heere it need not to bee admitted for God might often appeare to Moses to confirme him Iun. and this was said in Midian the other vision was in Horeb the distinction of the place sheweth them to be divers apparitions Simler 2. The Lord to encourage Moses taketh away all doubts and telleth him that all which sought his life as well Pharaoh as the pursuers of the bloud of the slaine were dead Iun. And thus much Moses might impart also to his father
death The Romane lawes followed Moses president in punishing of adulterers so did some other nations beside The King of Babel burnt Zedekiah and Ahab two false Prophets with fire for committing adultery Ierem. 29.23 Among the Egyptians the man taken in adulterie was beaten with a thousand stripes the woman had her nose cut off Diodor. Sicul. lib. 2. cap. 3. The Germanes used to set the adulteresse naked before her kindred and cut off her haire and then her husband dâ—ave her before him through the street beating her with cudgels Cornel. Tacit. de morib German The Cumeans placed the adulteresse in the Market place upon a stone in open view that shee might be derided and scorned of all and then set her upon an asse and ever after shee was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an asse rider and the stone they abhorred as an uncleane thing Plutar. tom 1. in quastionib Graciâ— These or some other grievous punishment may be imposed upon the odious crime of adulterie where it is not recompensed with losse of life but to dallie with so great iniquitie and either to winke at it or to let it passe with a light and superficiall checke is displeasing to God and offensive to all good men See more of this question how farre Moses Judicials doe now binde 1 qu. generall in Exod. QUEST X. Whether it be lawfull for the husband to kill his wife taken in adulterie BUt whereas the ancient Romane lawes permitted the husband to kill his wife taken in adulterie as appeareth in the declamations of Seneca how a man having lost both his hands in warre comming home and taking his wife with another in adulterie commanded his sonne to kill them both and for refusing hee did abdicate and renounce him for his sonne Some would justifie this also as lawfull pretending the example of Phinehes that stroke the adulterer and adulteresse thorow at once Contra. 1. Though the ancient lawes did not punish the husband that killed his wife taken in adulterie yet that act was not thereby made lawfull but the law did therein beare with the just griefe of the husband 2. And though the lawes of men should tolerate it yet before God he committeth murther because he doth it in his rage and in his owne revenge 3. But the lastâ—r Romane lawes gave no such libertie for the man to kill his wife but onely the adulterer with whom shee is taken in her husbands house for by this meanes if men hated their wives they might seeke occasion to be rid of them and if he were a Noble personage with whom the woman was found it was not lawfull for the husband to kill him but only to keepe him foure and twentie houres prisoner at home untill he brought the witnesses 4. Phinehes example is altogether unlike for beside that he was stirred by the extraordinarie motion of the Spirit if this president should be followed it might be lawfull for any man to kill the adulterer and the adulteresse and not for the husband onely for both of these whom Phinehes killed were strangers unto him the man was of another tribe and the woman a Midiaâ—iâ—esse ex Simlerâ— QUEST XI Simple fornication whether a breach of this Commandement THou shalt not commit adulterie c. 1. Some are of opinion that simplex fornicatio single fornication which is soluti cum soluta of a single man with a single woman is not here forbidden Oleaster Hee granteth that fornication with a woman quae esset alteri vel omnibus exposita which was either defiled by another or common to many was forbidden to the Israelites as Deut. 22.21 Shee that played the where in her fathers house should be put to death but otherwise it was not in this Commandement therefore he thinketh adultery only to be forbidden according to the native signification of the word naâ—ph which signifieth only to commit adultery Contra. 1. But I rather preferre the opinion of Aben Ezrah a learned Rabbin who thinketh Oâ—â—em concubitum qui non est viri cum uxore sua hîc esse prohibitum That all companying with a woman beside of the man with the wife is here forbidden for seeing single fornication is against the Law of nature as Iudah before the Law was written adjudged Thamar for her whoredome to the fire Gen. 38. as Oleast himselfe confesseth it must also of necessity be held to be a breach of the Morall law which is grounded upon the Law of nature 2. And as for the use of the word Augustine well sheweth by the interpretation of our blessed Saviour Matth· 5.9 that even adultery is a kinde of fornication Hee that dismisseth his wife except for fornication causeth her to commit adulterie the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fornication which is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adulterie Beza in hunc locum 2. But that single fornication even betweene parties both unmarried and unbetrothed is forbidden in this Commandement it shall bee manifested by these reasons 1. Augustine thus argueth 1. If that kinde of fornication be not forbidden here Vbi sit illa prohibita in decalogo utrum inveniri possit ignore Whether it can be found prohibited elsewhere in the decalogue I am ignorant c. But it is certaine that it is either forbidden here or no where in the morall law 2. Againe Si furti nomine bene intelligitur omnis illicita usurpatio rei alienae c. if under the name of theft is well understood all unlawfull usurping of other mens goods Profectò nomine moechiae omnis illicitus concubitus c. by the same reason also by the name of adulterie all unlawfull companie with a woman is forbidden August quaest 71. in Exod. 3. Further Augustine in another place thus reasoneth Say not Vxorem non habeo c. I have no wife and therefore I sinne not against her neither doe I covet another mans wife ad meretricem eo I goe unto an harlot In Deum pecccas cujus imaginem per diffluentias libidinis in te violasti c. Thou sinnest against God whose image thou hast violated in thy selfe by thy overflowing lust 4. Againe Dominus quiscit quid tibi utile sit uxorem concessit hoc pracepit hoc jussit The Lord who knoweth what is best for thee hath granted thee a wife that thou shouldest not wander in lust this he commandeth thee to doe if thou canst not containe thy selfe c. Therefore the fornicator in giving himselfe to lust and refusing the remedie which God hath appointed therein offendeth against God 2. Thom. Aquin. addeth these arguments 1. A rigno Dei non excluditur aliquis nisi per peccatum mortale c. one is not excluded the Kingdome of heaven but by a mortall sinne but fornication excludeth out of the Kingdome of God 1 Cor. 6.9 therefore it is a deadly sinne 2. Licet non detur corpus uxoris datur tamen corpus Christi c. although he have not a wife given
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 if any man did beat and batter another he should