Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1

CHAP. XVIII.

ANd Jethro the father in law of Moses heard of all which the Lord had done for Moses and for Israel his people, &c. The deliverance of Israel out of Egypt was so notable, that the fame thereof was soon spread far and wide, according to that in the song of Moses, The people shall hear and tremble; and therefore Jethro being no far-dweller, might easily hear of it by the common fame. Or, as Simlerus hath it, Moses haply sent a messenger unto him, to signify what had passed, and by him some present in way of love and kindness, which he saith also might be intimated in the last word of the next Verse, after he had sent her, as if it had been said, after he had sent them, that is, gifts unto him. But this is worthily counted frigid by Calvin, because it is plainly spoken of the wife of Moses, before sent unto her father. It is but an imagination then, that Jethro had a message first from Moses, it was the fame which he heard that drew him hither, as Ferus noteth, that he might see something for his further confirmation, that he might congratulate with Moses that great deliverance, praise God together with him therefore, and publish the same to others at his return again home. And this is worth the noting, [Note.] that an Heathen is moved by God's wonderful acts done for his people to magnify him, when his people were ever and anon ready to murmur against him, slighting all his famous works. This was nothing but a figure of that which happened in the time of Christ, for then the Jews were not affected but with indignation at his miracles, but the Gentiles were. Who Jethro was, and whether Prince or Priest, and where Madian is, from whence he came, and how far distant from Mount Sinai, I have spoken, Chap. 2.

Jethro cometh with his daughter Zipporah, the wife of Moses, and his two sons Gershons and Eliezer, whom Moses is said to have sent back. This sending back, according to most Expositors, was, Chap. 4. v. 26. upon occasion of the difference about the circumcising of his child, he finding that wife and children would be a trouble to him in executing his weighty Office at that time in Egypt, and haply being advised thus to do by Aaron, who met him, see before, Chap. 4. 26. Calvin contrariwise holdeth, that Moses being come to this place, where he was not far from Jethro, sent his wife and children over to visit him, that they might mutually rejoice in seeing one another, she haply desiring it, and hereupon Jethro to requite this kindness, came back again with them. And to the former opinion, he thinketh, that we may not consent, because if Moses should have sent his wife and children back before, he might by Jethro have been suspected of fraud, and his own children never coming into Egypt should not have been partakers of the Redemption, of which he was the Minister, which is improbable, seeing they were to be Priests afterwards. But Simlerus well showeth these reasons to be weak, because Moses might easily make it appear, that he left his wife and children hehinde him for none other end, but that he might with the more expedition go about that whereunto he was called: for if he had taken his family with him, either he must have neglected it, which had been impious, or in caring for that, he must needs have been troubled in his calling in those dangerous times. Touching the other reason, his children did partake of the redemption in their father, and by circumcision were joined as one people to the rest, and so capable of any dignity in the Church of God. Of the sons of Moses, see before, Chap. 2. and 4.

And he said to Moses, I thy father in law Jethro am come to thee, &c. that is, he said thus by a messenger sent before to Moses to tell him of his coming: for Moses was in great authority, and by the incursion of the Amalekites it is likely, that the people kept watch and ward, so that none coming with any company could come near without sending first, and signifying the cause of their coming, so Simlerus; and to express this, the Septuagint have it, It was told Moses, saying, Jethro thy father in law is come.

Then Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, &c. He was still the same humble Moses, notwithstanding the dignity by the Lord put upon him, and therefore showeth all signs of reverence to Jethro, as in times past, and so the greatest ought to do towards fathers and mothers, or fathers in law, &c. thus Solomon set his mother upon his right hand.

Then Moses told all that had passed to Jethro, and he greatly rejoiced, and blessed God for it, and acknowledged him to be above all gods. Because Jethro, as is most probable, came to know, what great things God had done, Moses satisfieth his desire herein. And by his rejoicing and praising of the Lord, it seemeth, that he had some knowledge of the true God before this: but hereof see somewhat before, Exod. 2. 16, 17.

And Jethro took a burnt-offering and sacrifice for God, and Aaron and all the Elders of Israel came to eat bread with him before God. To take an offering for God is to do sacrifice, to take it▪ to offer it up in sacrifice. If it shall seem strange, that Jethro sacrificed to God, seeing this Office belonged to Aaron and to his sons; It is answeeed, that the Levitical Priesthood was not yet set up, and therefore any Priest or Prince of his family might do sacrifice, after the example of the ancient Fathers: so Simlerus, but Calvin denieth, that he offered, as a Priest, only the liberty given before the Law to any to do sacrifice is here used: for that the fact was justifiable, appeareth, because Aaron and the Elders by their presence approved thereof: yet Augustine, saith Peter Comester, will not yield, that Jethro sacrificed, but Moses; according to another translation, Jethro took sacrifices of those that were offered by Moses, and ate. By his burnt-offerings he first expiated his sins, and then he offered sacrifices, that is, of peace and thanksgiving, and of these last they ate together, as is allowed, Levite. 7. 15. and this name of sacrifices is expressed, Exod. • 4. 5. Of the burnt-offerings for sin they might not eat, Levite. 1. 9. But what is meant by eating before God? To this Augustine answereth, that eating to the honor of God is meant, because yet no Tabernacle was erected, that their eating there should be meant. For when a Tabernacle was erected, to eat there was to eat before God, Deut. 12. 7. 1 Chron. 29. 21, 22. but now to keep an holy feast to the honor of God. For in all sacrifices this was the order, to lay part upon the Altar, and to eat the rest together, and this custom was followed by the Heathen sacrificing to Idols, at whose feasts Christians are forbidden to be present, lest they should thus become partakers of Devils tables. The phrase setting forth feasting, is, to eat bread, so likewise, Eccles. 10. 19. Dan. 5. 1. Levite. 3. 11. Chap. 21. 16. Numb. 28. 2. so that to eat bread here, is to eat both bread and flesh, yea to feast. One saith, They ate before God, that is, before the cloudy pillar the sign of his presence. To eat before God, that is, in the fear of God, which Ferus addeth, and so to refrein from excess, and from corrupt talk at feasting-times, although it be necessary to be inculcated, yet it is not the thing properly meant in this place.

And the next morning Moses sat to judge the people, and they stood by him from morning till evening. This Jethro disalloweth, as a thing over-wearisome both to him and to them, and prescribeth another form of government. In reproving the course followed by Moses, he first inquireth, verse. 14. What is this that thou doest? &c. he answereth, The people come to me to seek the Lord, when they have any cause they come to me, and I judge between one and another, and make them know the statutes and laws of God, v. 15, 16. He is not rash in finding fault with so great a Prince, but proceedeth most warily & wisely, taking heed to speak nothing that might offend him: for thus circumspectly must Rulers be handled by those that will do any good upon them, and not provoke them to their own hurt. He could not but commend and admire the labors of Moses for the good of the people, in that even at this time, when he had a special friend with him, he yet attended upon his office for the common good, and sat about it all the day long, and therefore his words are words of admiration, What is this that thou doest! But it was the charge laid upon him by God, and his love to the people that made him to do thus, because he knew not whether he might commit this office to any other for him, or not. And where love and conscience of duty is, any burden is made light; but [Note.] contrariwise, where there is self-love and ignorance of God's Law requiring it, every little burden born for others is heavy. To seek the Lord, this is by the Septuagint rendered, To seek judgment of God; the Chaldee Paraphrast, To seek doctrine from the face of the Lord. In any case of difference betwixt man and man, he that goeth to law, seeketh the Lord's judgment; if otherwise to satisfy his own corrupt desires, he cometh with bribes, he altogether forgetteth the end, why a Judge is appointed. They come to me, and I judge, that is, first bringing their matters to God: See verse. 19. Numb. 27. 5, 6. and Chap. 15. 33, 34, 35. But here a question lieth, Whether Moses went every time to [Quest.] the Lord to inquire, and how he could show them God's statutes, before they were made, for the Law was not yet given? Augustine answereth, It is not likely that he went to inquire in every case, for the Law of God is written in every godly mind, a man knoweth, saith Ferus, by the Law of Nature, what is right, and what wrong, and so in ordinary matters to give a right judgment. He might then by this light show them, what were the laws and statutes of God, although they were not yet written. But Moses was more then an ordinary man, and through the great measure of the Spirit, which he had, could not only by the light of Nature, but hereby understand to judge according to the will of God. And thus much is intimated, when the Lord saith, Numb. 11. that he would take of his Spirit, and put it upon the Elders that should govern with him. And it is worth the noting, [Note.] that the judgment of Moses was not his own, but God's will, and his law. And so should it be with every Judge, private affections should bear no sway, but simply God's judgment should in every matter be declared. And therefore it is said, that Moses sat to judge the people, the sitting of the Judge showing the quiet that should be in his mind, and freedom from disquieting affections, as Ferus hath it. The law of God and laws made according to it must be the rule to go by, and not the pleasure of men, who are in high place, because all men are variable, but the Law is constant, and always like itself. He that will have the Law to rule, saith Aristotle, seeketh to set God over things; but he that would have men, setteth beasts over them. And yet it is strange to see, that now we are judged by Laws, yet it is a most hard thing to have a right judgment, the course of the Law is so intricate. He that hath a just cause, must spend so much time and be at so great charge, that he had as good leave it as follow it. There are so many subtleties and snares, that a just cause may be lost, either because he that followeth it is not sufficiently instructed herein, or his case is not duly propounded, that most impious rule being objected for the defense of all this, Vigilanti jura sub veniunt, as Ferus complaineth, and that not without cause, the greater is the sin of Judges. Touching the reproving of the course followed by Moses, and the counsel of a Forreigner given unto him. If it shall seem strange, that Moses so familiarly instructed by God, should yet need counsel from another; Saint Augustine saith, That this was done to show, that good counsel ought not to be contemned by whomsoever it be given, and that Moses might hereby be kept from being proud of his elevation alone above all, when as he saw yet that there was another; who went in some things beyond him in counsel, in respect of externals, saith Ferus; for in regard of divine things, he excelled all men in the knowledge thereof. Heathen [Note.] men have their excellencies in outward things, and go sometimes herein beyond the children of light. Again, hereby is shown, that no man is in every respect perfect, but defective in some things, that if so great a man as Moses, had his error, we may look carefully to ourselves, lest if we be remiss, we prove full of faults.

It is not good that thou doest, &c. It was not simply evil which he did, but very commendable for the matter; but the manner was not so commodious, which he meaneth, when he saith, It is not good. Vers. 19. I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee. Hereby is intimated, saith Augustine, that the mind too much intent to human affairs is without God, of whom it is so much the more full, by how much the more extended more Freely to things supernal and eternal. And by saying thus, he meaneth not that Moses should follow his counsel, but with the allowance of God, as lie further expresseth, verse. 23. so Simlerus. By all these speeches it seemeth that Jethro was both wise and godly, although none of the children of Israel, and that Job was not alone amongst the Heathen to be commended. Be thou for the people to God ward, to bring their causes to God, the Chaldee Paraphrast addeth, inquiring doctrine from the face of the Lord. For causes in Hebrew is (words) but their hard matters are meant, wherein none but God could judge, and therefore Moses did accordiugly afterwards, Numb. 19. 3 • , &c. He doth wisely, laith Ferus, distinguish betwixt the two sorts of power, the spiritual and the temporal; the spiritual is that which is to Godward, this he doth not advise should be communicated to any other, but retained by Moses, viz. 1 To pray to God for the people, and to show what answer he giveth in doubtful cases. 2 To show them, according to what rites and ordinances they ought to worship God, Thou shalt teach them the statutes and laws, verse. 20. 3. To show them which way to make their journey, Thou shalt show the • the way that they shall go. 4 The works to be done by them.

But for rhe temporal power to judge all matters, v. 21. Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and place such over them to be Rulers of thousands, handreths, fifties, and tens. Deut. 1. 13. Moses recounting this choosing of able men to rule over them, saith, that he bade them to choose wise men and understanding, and he would make them Rulers, &c. But here Jethro counselleth him to provide such, and he is said to have done in all things, as Jethro counseled, v. 24. Here is no difference, Moses provideth them in appointing the people to nominate them, and being nominated committing the office of judging and ruling unto them▪ for the chief authority to make them Rulers still rested in him, as appeareth, Deut. 1. v. 15. So I took the chief of your Tribes, and made them heads • ver you, &c. The people do more willingly obey those that be set in authority, when they themselves have an hand in the choice of them, and therefore all Officers were chosen amongst the Romans by the people, and the Knights of the Shire amongst us in England; who together with the King and Nobles enact all Laws. And in the Primitive Church Presbyters were nominated by the people, who might preach the Gospel unto them, and ordained by the Bishop, as being of chief authority, able men, Deut. 1. 15. They are called the chief of their tribes, wise men and known: for it availeth much to appoint men to rule, that are nobly and not basely born, if so be that they have wisdom and courage to help the oppressed, and this be a thing well known and observed in them. The word translated able, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereupon the Hebrews say thus, Able men are such as be mighty in the Commandments, and exactly look to themselves and subdue their affections, so that there is no dishonest or contemptible thing in them, nor evil name. And such as have a strong and courageous heart to deliver the oppressed out of the oppressors hand, Maimonides in Sanhedrin, Chap. 2. Sect. 7. In the Septuagint it is rendered just men: and some, saith Simlerus, render it wise, some valiant, some strong of body, and some wealthy, but he preferreth that, whereby it is rendered, men of courage, and valiant. But our reading is best, able men, that is, both for wisdom, and courage, and wealth, and bodily strength, and so fit to be set over others. Fearing God, this must be in a Judge to expel the fear of man, which might hinder him from doing justice. Men of truth, that is, inquiring into the truth of matters that come before them, and judging accordingly, and therefore neither partial, nor deceitful, nor blinded by malice. Hating covetousness, this vice, as the root of all evil, must not only be away, but be hated, and this is opposed to taking of bribes. How bribes corrupt justice, see Deut. 16. 19. 1 Sam 8. 3. Prov. 1. 19. Ezech. 22. 27. Esa 56. 11. The Chaldee hath it, hating to receive Mammon, hating, say the Hebrews, their own Mammon, and not hastening to gather riches Some observe three more properties added, Deut. 1. 15. wisdom, and understanding, and fame, for they must be known men, and therefore the Hebrews say, that in every Ruler there ought to be these seven things, wisdom, meekness, the fear of God, hatred of Mammon, love of the truth, love of their fellow-creatures, and a good name. And unto these an eighth may be added, he must be ancient, Numb. 11.

Rulers over thousands, &c. This is commonly rendered Tribunes, because, as Comestor hath it, each one was over a Tribe, not for that in one Tribe there were no more but just a thousand, but he was called a Chiliarch or Ruler over a thousand, a certain number being put for an uncertain. If so, then there were but twelve of these, otherwise six hundred, and of the next sort six thousand, under each one ten Hecatontarchs, under each of them two, and under each of them five. And if this be understood of Judges, where, saith Simlerus, could so many be had able to judge amongst this rude people? and therefore he understandeth by these all that did bear any Office in leading the people in their ranks. The Hebrews, saith he, refer these numbers to Apparitours, saying, That some Judge had under him ten, some fifty, some a hundred, and some a thousand to execute their judgments. But it is plain, that so many Rulers were appointed; those over ten to decide trifling matters, for which it was necessary to keep them the better in order to have one near unto them, to whom they might go. After all these Rulers named in the Hebrew text, the Septuagint add moreover, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 some to lead to the knowledge of letters, about which Augustine is much troubled, not knowing what to make of it, unless they had then the knowledge of letters, which when it began he knoweth not, unless, as some think, from Adam, and after from Noah and Abraham, &c. But because no such thing is in the Hebrew, I leave this, as not worth the inquiring into here.

Moses in all this hearkened to Jethro, so great was his humility, that he scorned not the counsel of another man, although he himself was so full of understanding.

But all this was not done without a mystery, for hereby was figured out, in that Jethro a Gentile instructeth Moses, that the Church of the Gentiles should in time to come instruct the Jews, teaching them a spiritual and good sense of the Law, and bring them to follow that, who before, although sometime they were the only Doctors of the Law, were overmuch toiled, and that without profit in following their own sense, but when this time shall come, which shall be at their conversion to Christ, they shall follow it in all things: to this effect almost Isidore.

Then Moses sent away his father in law, and he went to his own Country. Although he went not to the same Country with the Israelites, because that was promised to Abraham and his seed, yet he was joined to them in piety towards the same God, and his son Hobab went with them, Numb. 10. v. 29. coming again after his return to his own Country, see Judges 1. 16. Chap. 4. 11. 1 Samuel 15. 6. 2 Kings 10 15. 1 Chron. 2. 55. Jerem. 35. which places are plainly for it, of him came the people called the Kenites or Cinaei.

CHAP. XIX.

ANd the third month, when the children of Israel were gone out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. It was said before, that Sin and Sinai were one wilderness, parts whereof were Suph, Rephidim, Alus and Daphcah, taking the name from Mount Sinai, Chap. 17. 1 but now they come to that part properly called the wilderness of Sinai, where the Mount stood, and to this place they come, the third month the same day, that is, the first day of the month, according to some, or the third day, according to others; but Calvin saith, this is forced. To me it seemeth plain, the same day is the same day that the month began, being their new Moon, and so a solemn feast-day afterwards appointed. And so accurate is Moses in setting down the time, because this was the most remarkable station of all others. For here they were appointed at the first to come forth and sacrifice, Exod. 3. here they saw many signs, and heard God speaking, and the Ark was reared up, and here they tarried longer then in any other place, for they came hither the first day of the third month the first year, and removed not till the twentieth day of the second month of the second year, so that they stayed here an whole year, wanting ten days. Before they came to this place, passed but 15 days, since their coming into the wilderness of Sin, in which they were miraculously supplied with meat and water, and delivered from Amalek, and Jethro came to the camp, and went away again: for their coming to Sin was the 15 day of the second month, and their coming hither the first of the third. And it is to be noted, that this was the 47 day, since their coming out pf Egypt, 16 of the first month, 30 of the second, and first of the third, unto which three more being added, they make fifty, upon which day the Law was given, and therefore at that time the feast of Pentecost was most aptly appointed to be kept, and the Spirit as the finger of God cometh to write the Law in our hearts, as the Law was now written by the the finger of God in tables of stone, so Rabanus.

But Moses went up to God, for the Lord had called him out of the mountain, saying, &c. Some think, saith Simlerus, that he used sometimes to go aside to pray, and that it is most probable, that he did so at this time: but he holdeth rather on the contrary side, that God by an audible voice called him up to the Mount, because it is not likely, that he would otherwise have presumed to go up into so holy a place. Calvin thinketh, that going aside by himself to seek unto God, as his usual manner was, God called unto him. I subscribe rather to Simlerus, for certainly, as Ferus noteth, having been once forbidden, Come not hither, for the ground whereupon thou standest, is holy ground; he would not have presumed to go nigh, unless the Lord had called him. From hence forward unto Numb. 10. 11. are set down the things done only in this place in the space of almost one whole year. Moses his going up to God was only his going to the place where God appeared unto him; for to speak properly, a man can go to no place, but God is there as well as in another. And here God is now said to be, because the cloudy pillar, the sign of his presence stood here, v. 9.

Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the house of Israel. Verse 4. Ye have seen, what I did to the Egyptians, and I have born you upon Eagles wings, &c. This is spoken in way of preparation to the giving of the Law, as the like speech is used afterwards, it being renewed, D • ut. 29. 2 and Chap. 32. 11. the Septuagint have it, as upon Eagles wings, that is, safely and speedily, as an Eagle taketh up her young ones upon her back, and carrieth them, and openly not only over lands, but also over waters, as if they had flown: for some saith Ferus, hold, that the Eagle transporteth her young ones from place to place upon her back, flying aloft so, as that if any arrow should be shot, it cannot come at them, because her body is between, or her flight is too high for any shot to reach unto them, and in like manner God did carry his people safe from all dangers. And as is further explained, Deut. 32. 11. She stirreth up her nest, fluttereth with her wings, &c. that is, both with wings and talons defendeth her young ones from any assailant, so God defended his people from all dangers. And he saith, that he brought them to himself, the Chaldee, to my service, Targum Hierosol. to the doctrine of my law, he meaneth as he had appointed Moses to bring them out of Egypt to this mountain to serve him, so he had now done it, notwithstanding all the obstacles in the way. And here is an Antithesis betwixt Pharaoh and himself, before they had served Pharaoh, but now they were come to serve a better master, the Lord; all which is spoken, that they might hold themselves the more obliged unto God, and so the more readily obey his Commandments, which were now to be delivered unto them. And he doth not only commemorate favors past, but promiseth further.

If ye shall obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, &c. That which God had already done for them was enough to bind them to him forever, but as if he had done nothing for them already, he addeth here new promises, a peculiar treasure, in Hebrew, Segullah, signifying a man's own proper good, which he loveth and keepeth in store for himself, and for special use; the Septuagint render it, a peculiar people, which Saint Peter following, saith of the faithful likewise, 1 Pet. 2. 9. and Saint Paul, Tit. 2. 14. the Chaldee rendereth it, beloved. How the word is used, see 1 Chron. 29. 3. Eccles. 2. 8. Rab. Menahem saith, that he meaneth beloved, as a special treasure, in which a King is so delighted, that he will not commit it to the keeping of any other, but keep it himself, see Deut. 10. 14, 15, Psal. 135. 4. and ye shall be unto a Kingdom of Priests, the Septuagint have it, a Kingly Priesthood, so likewise Saint Peter, applying it to the faithful. They are thus called, both because they should offer sacrifices to God, and be of greatest dignity, for this is set forth by Kings and Priests, the highest degrees of men. Ye shall be high and glorious, saith Ferus, and hereby is also shown, that Christ should come of them, who is both King and Priest. And an holy Nation, that is, separated from all other Nations to serve God in holiness. Or a Kingly Priesthood, saith Simlerus, is an holy Kingdom, not profane, as other Kingdoms are, a Kingdom of God, saith Calvin, whereas others were the Kingdoms of wicked tyrants of the world. Of this the Jews boast themselves still, but forsomuch as they have rejected the faith of Christ, they have lost this honor, and the faithful company of Christians wheresoever have it rightly by Saint Peter applied unto them. For they only are now, a peculiar people, redeemed for such by the blood of Christ, an holy Nation, sanctified thereby, a royal Priesthood, because both members of him, that is, King and Priest, and because they are God's perpetual Kingdom, and always offer up the clean sacrifices of praise and prayer.

According to these words Moses speaketh to the Elders, and all people promised to obey. By the Elders the people in their several ranks are informed hereof, but their promise of obeying was but words, as the sequel proved, although haply they purposed so to do at this time, but their human frailty wrought to the contrary in them.

And the Lord said to Moses, Lo, I come to thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee forever. The Septuagint, to explain what this thick cloud was, have it, in the pillar of the cloud: for, believe thee, it is in Hebrew, believe in thee, that is, have a confidence in thy word, as in the word of God, see before chap. 14. 31. Whereas it is twice said, Moses returned the words of the people to the Lord, verse. 8. and again, Moses told the words of the people to the Lord, verse. 9. This second is nothing else, but a repetition of the same, as the cause why the Lord promised to come and speak with Moses in the cloud; thus he would do yet more to confirm them; for Moses had reported their promise of obedience in all things, so Calvin; and therefore he rendereth it, Indicaverat autem Moses, &c. Some think that Moses went to relate their promise, but before he spake, was prevented by the Lord's speaking again first unto him, and then he related it after, so saith Simlerus, but approveth it not, referring the last words, as spoken in the Preterpluperfect Tense, Moses had told their words to the Lord, to their words spoken long before, chap. 6. 12. but this seemeth to be far fetched.

And the Lord said to Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day, &c. Before the giving of the Law, the people must be sanctified, because pearls must not be cast before swine, nor holy doctrine put into unclean vessels. In that it is commanded, that they should be sanctified, both the uncleanness of man by nature is shown, and that he is uncapable of good by the Law of God, unless he cometh prepared and sanctified unto it; and hence it is, that so many reap so little good by the Word, because they prepare not themselves, but come rashly unto it, as to other human actions, or to a stage-play, so Calvin. The inward sanctification of the heart indeed is that, which chiefly commendeth us to God, but outward washing served to put them in mind hereof, because when it was required that they should wash their garments two days together, they might well think with themselves, if God will not have any to come near unto him to hear his Law, unless all filthiness be washed from their garments, he will much less admit of any, that are unclean in soul by sin. Again, this outward washing shown how much they made account of God and of his Law, because when we are to come before such as we make high account of, we will have care that our very garments be clean and decent, so Ferus, who saith for these causes vestments peculiar are appointed to be worn in the service of God, to show what high account we make hereof. But this is a weak ground, since they changed not, but washed their garments only. Their sanctifying is explained to have been by washing their garments, and afterwards by keeping from their wives, verse. 15. because although there be no pollution in the husbands companying with the wife, yet the carnal delight hindereth, that a man cannot be so wholly intent to heavenly matters; and therefore that we may be possessed altogether with these, that is for the time prohibited, so likewise 1 Cor. 7. 5. From this the Heathen took up their custom of washing, when they came about their Superstitions. This figureth out the washing by the Holy Ghost, wherewith whosoever is not washed and prepared, is not capable of any good by hearing the law and will of the Lord set forth. And a man is then washed in his garments, when the members of his body, which be as garments to the soul, are washed; and these are washed when we repent us of our sins acted hereby, and till it is thus with us, we are not accepted of in hearing the Law, but our coming before God is rejected as abominable, Esa. 1. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. And to show that we are not easily cleansed from sin, they are bidden to wash today and tomorrow▪ and to be ready against the third day; all the time of our life we must be sanctifying ourselves, that we may be ready the third day, setting forth the resurrection, because Christ rose upon the third day. If it shall seem preposterous, that they must be sanctified first, and then hear the Law, when as by hearing faith is attained, which purifieth and sanctifieth the heart: Calvin answereth, that a godly desire to learn, humility and reverence are the beginning of faith, hereby we are sanctified, as the seat of faith is thus prepared, but then are we truly purged, when we do by faith apply Christ unto our souls. And it is said, The Lord will descend upon mount Sinas, because some illustrious visible sign of his presence should be seen there.

And thou shalt set bounds to the people round about, saying, Take heed unto your selves, that ye come not up into the mount, neither touch the border thereof, whosoever toucheth it, shall surely be put to death, &c. This is spoken to prevent curiosity in them, whereby we desire to be prying into that which is not revealed, this is straightly forbidden upon pain of death to everyone, we must be wise, but according to sobriety according to that which is written, we must by any means take heed of coming rashly to divine things, and everyone must herein keep within the bounds set him. No doubt, but the people were desirous to have gone up to see and talk familiarly with God, as Moses, but this is not permitted to everyone, all must keep within the limits of their calling. Moses may come where God calleth him, but the people must stand aloof, there must not be any confusion of offices in the Church of God. This charge was also given, saith Simlerus, for reverence to the divine Majesty, for if none may come nigh an earthly King for reverence, unless he be called, neither may they come nigh the place where the heavenly appeareth. And if we must not curiously pry into the things of God, but be content with that measure of revelation that is made unto us by his Prophets, then they [Note.] sin dangerously, that by the strength of human reason seek to pierce into the mysteries of the God-head, this hath been the fountain of many damnable errors, and the destruction of many souls.

The punishment of him that came to the mount, He shall be stoned to death, or stricken thorough with a dart, whether man or beast, a hand shall not touch it. These words, shall not touch it, are not to be referred to the mountain, but to the man or beast going beyond the bounds, it shall be counted so execrable, that they shall not touch him with the hand to put him to death, but stone him, or shoot him thorough with a dart, which might be done afar off, and without pursuing him to fetch him back, or staying till his return, so Calvin, Simlerus, Ainsworth and Tremellius, who to make this sense the more plain hath it,. Let no hand touch it, but let it be stoned, &c. and this will appear the better to be the very meaning to him that shall look into the Hebrew Text. Having before adjudged him that went beyond the bounds set him to the death, now he showeth by what manner of death he should die. Now this severe punishment, and the dread not to be endured accompanying the Law, served to show how terrible the Law is, and such, as that none are able to bear it, because thereby is no justification to be attained, that the Gospel might be the more welcome, and be the more readily embraced, as the Apostle applieth it, Heb. 12. 18, 19, 20, &c. If a beast touched the mount, it must die, this was for a punishment to the owner to make him the more careful of his beast, that it might not come near. Mystically by beast is meant the beastly minded, or the mind subjected to unreasonable lusts, which are of beasts; for if any endued with such a mind cometh to contemplate supernal things, he is smitten with judgments from above to his destruction, as Arius and other Heretics, so Rabanus and Ferus. When the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. What is this, they must not come up to the mount upon [Quest.] pain of death, verse. 12. and here, the trumpet having sounded long they should come up? This is commonly answered, that they must be guided by the Lord's will, to stay when he willeth, and to come up when he willeth; and therefore whilst the signs of God's glorious presence continued, they must not come near, but when these were away, a sign whereof should be the long sounding of the trumpet. Thus the Chaldee, When the trumpet shall be withdrawn, they shall have leave to go up. And the Septuagint, When the voices, trumpet and cloud are departed from the mountain, they shall go up. So likewise Tremellius, The sound of one tone protracted, which is commonly at the end of music, should be a sign unto them, that the religion of that place was at an end, the Lord thus departing and terminating this sacred action by this sign. But Calvin and Simlerus say, that God by giving liberty at such time to come up, would give them comfort, lest they should desperately cast away the care of keeping the Law, they not being at any time permitted to come up to this holy place. Hereby if they meant liberty to come up, whilst the Cloud continued there, and the place was specially sanctified, as v. 23. it is in that, v. 23, contradicted, and in the whole course of this story. By the trumpet sounding Simlerus understandeth a trumpet, which Moses caused to be sounded for a sign, and this is most probable, because God's trumpet sounded long and loud, whilst God was there, v. 19. at what time they might not come up to the Mount. Mystically at the sound of the trumpet of the Gospel, we should ascend in our minds up to divine contemplations: thus Rabanus: but Simlerus better, The trumpet soundeth longer under the Gospel, and we ascend up the Mount by having all things laid open more plainly, then under the Law, when it sounded also, but not in this manner, and we shall go up into the Mount at the last trumpet, and then we shall see as we are seen.

Be ready against the third day, Come not at your wives. This, although it be not expressed before, yet certainly Moses had it from the Lord also, because he would not add anything of his own. And a man is forbidden now to come at his wife, because that even in his lying with his own wife there is outward uncleanness, Levite. 15. 18. but no sin, for to touch a dead body, for a woman to have her flowers was an uncleanness, and to have an issue in the body, but neither of these a sin. In that the body must now be kept clean from all outward pollution, this served to figure out the inward purity of the soul, which is required to be in everyone of us. But even under the New Testament we are bidden to refrein for fasting and prayer, wherefore a man's companying with his wife hindereth his prayers, and for this cause it seemeth to be necessary, that Ministers of God's holy Word and [Object.] Sacrament should not marry. I answer, this is so appointed for our greater humiliation at that time, and that being separate from all delights of the flesh we might be wholly addicted to spiritual things: but because so great humiliations are not required always, but at some special times upon special occasion, it sufficeth, that a man then refreineth: but from marriage to keep any man therefore altogether of what condition soever, is a doctrine of Devils.

And the third day in the morning there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the Mount, &c. Thunder and lightnings are terrible to all men, yea the most courageous, as being signs of God's anger, 1 Sam. 12. 18. by the Poets it is called for this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Wherefore God appeared thus in giving the Law to strike terror into us, that none may dare to transgress against it, God showing hereby that he will be most terrible to transgressors. And unto this, other reasons are added by Ferus, viz. that the rude people might see a difference betwixt the true God and Idols, in the celebrating of whose feasts all manner of abuses were committed, but they might now fear to commit the like before the Lord; and again, as at other times God hath appeared in some likeness to the thing, about which he appeared, as to Abraham in the likeness of men, when he promised a man-child; to Moses in the likeness of fire, when he promised deliverance of his people out of their fiery affliction in Egypt; so here being about to give the law, which would terrefie and trouble the conscience of the sinner, he appeared terribly, but in the Gospel, which is for comfort mildly; for Christ was meek and gentle.

The next thing spoken of was a thick cloud, by the Septuagint rendered a dark cloud, which the Apostle following saith, blacknessse and darkness. This was to show, that God is unto man as darkness, by reason of the darkness of his understanding, although in his own nature he be light, wherefore this vale of darkness intimated his glory, which mortal eyes cannot behold, in that when he came to speak unto them, a curtain was thus as it were drawn before him, that their eyes might not be dazelled with his glory. And the sound of a trumpet exceeding loud, hereby the ministry of Angels wat set forth, for the Law was given by the ministry of Angels. Mystically, the three persons of the Trinity were by these three things figured out, the Father by the thunder and lightening, the Son by the thick cloud, because he put upon his divine light the darkness of man's nature, and the Holy Ghost by the trumpet, because he governeth in the trumpet of the Gospel: so Simlerus. Isidore applieth all this to the Holy Ghost coming down at Pentecost; the faithful assembled then were 120, Act. 1. 15. so Moses, by whom the Law was given, lived 120 years; as here all the people heard the voice of the thunder, &c. so then people of all Nations saw the fiery tongues, and heard their voices, &c.

Again, the thunder, saith Ferus, better figured out the terror to transgressors of the Law; the lightening, the knowledge which the people of God had, soon vanishing, as the lightening; the fire, the illumination of the godly; the darkness, the blinding of the wicked; and the sound of the trumpet, the gathering together of the faithful by the Word of God. For Aaron and his sons were afterwards appointed to blow with trumpets to assemble the people together, wherefore the sounding of the trumpet most aptly figured out the sound in the ministry by preaching the Gospel, which sound is said to have gone out into all lands, Rom. 10. 18, And all the people in the camp trembled: when God appeareth, man is not able to stand without terror; this showeth what the effect of the Law is, that none may seek justification thereby.

And Moses brought the people out to meet the Lord, &c. that is, out of their tents to the bounds set them, the Priests for the first-born first, then the Heads and Rulers, after them the Elders, then the Officers, after them the men, then the little ones, the women next, and lastly, the strangers, as in renewing the Covenant, Deut. 29. 10, 11. so Ibn-Ezra. The Scholastical History in setting down the terrible apparitions, saith, When the third day was come early before the Sun, they heard thundering and lightening, and saw a dark cloud, and smoke came out of the mountain, as out of a furnace, then they were all afraid, and thought Moses to have been destroyed. But at length Moses appeared joyfully, and fair weather with him returning to them. And then he said, Ye shall hear today not Moses the son of Amram, but him who smote Egypt for you, which led you through the sea, gave you meat from heaven, and water out of a Rock, &c. wherefore let his words be more amiable to you then your wives and children.

And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, &c. The Targum Hierosolym. hath it, because the glory of the Majesty of the Lord was revealed upon it in a flame of fire. The Lord gave signs of his presence before, but now the people being assembled about the mount, he revealed himself, saith the Chaldee Paraphrast, by more evident signs, fire and smoke, the mount moving and a voice. And the Lord appeared in fire, to show either his glory like unto the purity of fire, as Chap. 24. or his zeal against sin, in respect of which he is said to be a consuming fire, Deut. 4. and as a smoking furnace, to show that the wicked are as smoke before him, hurting the eyes of the godly by seeing their wickedness, but soon vanishing away: so Simlerus. But because smoke darkeneth, and fire enlighteneth, I rest in the former Exposition made by Ferus upon, verse 16. For the moving of the mountain, the Septuagint have it, All the people were astonied, but here was a greater argument of God's power, in that the very mountain, which is set so fast moved at his appearing, and accordingly God's praises are hereby celebrated, Psal. 114. 4. Psal. 68. 6. Judge. 5. 5. Habak. 3. 10.

And when the sound of the trumpet was longer and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by voice. It is not here said, what Moses spake, or God answered, but Heb. 12. 21. Moses said, I tremble and quake, so that it is likely Moses uttered words of fear, and God spake to comfort him, and to Daniel in the like case, Dan. 10. 8, 16, 17. This was that which the Lord promised verse. 9. to purchase unto Moses authority amongst the people, and figured out the voice of the Gospel comforting against the terrors of the Law.

And the Lord descended upon mount Sinai, upon the top of the mount, and called Moses up, &c. The Lord had before given this charge, that the people should not come past the bounds set them, verse. 12. but knowing how prone we are to do that which is forbidden, the same is here by him given in charge again, with threatening that the Lord would break forth upon them to the destruction of many. We must not once propound, but inculcate the charge [Note.] of the Lord again and again to the peopler Touching the Priests, of whom it is said in special, that they should sanctify themselves, when they came near to the Lord, a question may be moved, who these were, seeing no Priests [Quest.] were yet appointed? Ferus answereth, The first-born and the Princes of the people, who yet supplied the place of Priests, Simlerus the Elders and chief of the people. But that they were the first-born, in whose stead the Levites were afterwards set up, and not the Elders, appeareth, because they are called, the young men, Exod. 24 5. And it is not improbable, as Calvin hath it, that they were some chosen from amongst the first-born to this office, as all Nations had their Priests, but amongst so great a multitude it is not likely, that every family had a particular Priest. But why are these specially commanded [Quest.] to be sanctified? To this Simlerus answereth, Because the Priest must specially be sanctified for example to others: but Ferus better, Because haply they being in an holy order, might think themselves more privileged then the common sort, and so be bolder to go beyond their bounds, they therefore are commanded also to be sanctified with fear and reverence, the mount being then as the Sanctum Sanctorum, into which they might not enter no more then the people; for God putteth no difference between persons, but will alike be reverenced of all men. Lest the Lord break forth upon them. The Chaldee, Be strong, or very angry, even to the slaying of them, as when waters break forth, 2 Sam. 5. 20. chap. 6. 6, 7, 8.

And Moses said, The people cannot come up, for thou hast charged to set marks, &c. Moses measuring the people by himself, thought that the charge given before was sufficient to contain them, but by God's answer it appeareth, that he was deceived; and therefore he goeth, and doth again as God bade him: for whatsoever we shall think, God's will and his authority must sway us, even [Note.] contrary to our own imaginations.

CHAP. XX.

ANd God spake all these words and said, I am the Lord thy God, &c. Now cometh that, for which all this preparation was made, even the Law of the ten Commandments, in the explication whereof I will say nothing here, because I have already done it largely in my Catechism. The Law-giving begun here, as Ferus noteth, is continued throughout this and the three books following, only things touching the progress of the children of Israel in their journey to Canaan being inserted. This of the ten Commandments is called the Moral, the other Laws following are partly Judicial, and partly Ceremonial, this bindeth perpetually, those not. The Ceremonial Laws being nothing but figures of that which was to come; their Temple figured out the Church; their Sanctum Sanctorum, Heaven; their Priests, Christ; Sacrifices, his passions; their expiations, the grace of the Holy Ghost, and remission of sins, which being all come, those Ceremonies are quite abolished, and to use them still, were nothing else, but to profess that we believe not that the Messiah is come. Unto these ten Commandments, Calvin referreth all the laws following, as indeed there is not one but may well be brought under these heads.

And all the people saw the thunder and the lightening, and the mountain smoking, and they removed and stood of arre off, and said to Moses, Speak thou with us, &c. They saw, that is, perceived, as Jacob is said to have seen, that there was corn in Egypt, when he heard it, Gen. 42. 1. Act. 7. 12. This is more fully set down, Deut. 5. 22. 23, &c. Those words the Lord spake with a great voice, and when ye heard the voice out of the darkness, ye came near unto me, even all your heads, and said, We have heard God's voice, &c. which may serve for a further explication of these words. In that they are said to have seen, Ferus thinketh, that either their great stupidity is noted, in that they attended more to the signs accompanying the giving of the Law, then to the voice of God uttering it, or else the efficacy of God's voice is noted to be such, that it pierced their minds as a thing seen inwardly with the eye thereof. I embrace the former being the plain meaning, for as they are said here to see, so Deut. 5. 2. to have heard. These thunders, lightnings and trumpets sound must be conceived to have ceased for a time, whilst God spake, as Simlerus noteth, and then to have begun again for a conclusion, as when the Kings pleasure is declared by sound of trumpet, it is both begun and ended with sounding. They stood afar off, some Hebrews say, certain miles off. Lest we die, wonderful great was their fear, and hereby was intimated that the Law ingendereth unto bondage by fear, there being nothing but death to be expected by them, that are under the Law. As the Israelites could not endure to hear God speaking, lest they should die, so carnal men nre averse from hearing the Word of God, lest they should hereby be compelled to mortify the flesh God's voice [Note.] when he gave the Law had a double effect in the people, both to make them afraid, and to go far off, and the same effects hath the Law in the truly penitent, as we may see in the Publican, he feared to look up to heaven, and stood afar off. And as they desired a Mediator to speak between God and them, when the Law-giving terrefied them, so the Law must, as a School-master send us to Christ our Mediator, Gal. 3. 24. Heb. 12. 24. And according to their desire God did not only make Moses a Mediator, but promised the Prophet, Deut. 18. 10. to whom we should always hearken, and upon this desire of theirs. It was not thus with man from the beginning, for before sin he could familiarly converse with God, but immediately after sinning he feareth at the coming of the Lord, and hideth himself from his presence. So that sin, of which the conscience accuseth, is the cause why-man is afraid when God appeareth; this fear yet being in the godly nothing but a filial reverence towards their heavenly Father, but a servile fear in the wicked.

And Moses said, Fear not, for God is come to prove you, that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. The Septuagint render it, Be of good comfort, he seeketh hereby to comfort them against their exceeding great fear of the Lord, as coming to slay them. For all fear is not to be expelled out of the mind, no not of God's anger or judgments, but only the hurtful fear which maketh a man to flee from God; the profitable fear, which maketh a man to take heed of sinning, being retained. God is come to prove you. the Chaldee, God's glory is revealed, &c. Here are three ends which God aimeth at in his coming amongst men. 1 The proving of them. 2 Their fearing of him. 3 Their refreining from sin; and the first of every of these still is the cause of the other, or should be. God proveth man by showing himself terrible, that man knowing himself unable to bear the presence of his power and Majesty by reason of his weakness and corruption, and much less his wrath and indignation might hereupon show, whether he be good, which is, if humility and obedience follow hereupon, or evil, if frowardness or desperation. And when men are thus proved, in those that are godly, the fear of God followeth, and where the fear of God is, there is a refreining from sin.

And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the darkness where God was. This is rendered by the Septuagint a tempest, Deut. 4. 11. and thus likewise it is had, Heb. 12. 18. Ye are not come to the mount, &c. and to darkness, and blackness and tempest. Moses was herein a type of Christ, for he came down likewise amongst us, and then ascended up into the Heavens, where he is hidden from our sight, as in thick darkness, to be a Mediator for us with the Father, who in the mean while stand afar off, but he will descend again, and take us up with him at the last day, that we may there abide forever.

And the Lord said to Moses, Say to the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven, ye shall not make with me gods of silver, &c. Because the pure woshipping of God is the foundation of all true religion, the Lord doth here inculcate the command touching that again, as who knew well, that the people would be most prone to idolatry, the greatest corruption in the service of God, and experience proved this presently to be true, in that, notwithstanding this strict charge, they made unto them golden Calves, even before they went from this mount. But how is this a reason against making [Quest.] other gods? Answ. Either these very words contain an argument, Ye have seen that I have spoken to you, that is, ye have had experience of my power and terror, who forbid this, therefore make none other gods, or else being supplied out of Deut. 4. 12, 15, 16. When I spake unto you, ye saw no similitude, therefore make no similitude, or image, which is to the Idolater as a god.

But what is this, Thou shalt not make with me gods of silver? The Chaldee [Quest.] rendereth it, before me, and thus it is propounded verse. 3. and these words, with me, are thus used, Esth. 7. 8. 2 Sam. 6. 7. 1 Chron. 13. 10. Yet some, saith Simlerus, refer it to the mind, because they whose minds are taken up with the love of worldly profit or pleasure, make these their gods, being therefore called Idolaters. Others to the Cherubims, to be made at God's appointment afterwards, as if he had said, Although I shall appoint shortly certain images to be made, as it pleaseth me, yet ye shall not do the like with me, making other idols at your pleasure, thus some of the Hebrews. But the plain meaning is, as hath been said, Ye shall not make them, to be worshipped together with me, as they afterwards did, serving both God and Baal, and as did the Samaritans, 2 King. 17. neither shall ye make them to represent me, for ye saw no image. Other places against Idols are, Exod 34 17. Levite. 19. 4. Levite. 26. 1.

An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, &c. Haply, saith the Scholastical History, this altar was to be made before that of the Tabernacle to be carried about, or else that was to be made of earth. And indeed there was an altar made, Exod. 24. 4. before the brazen altar, Exod. 38. and this most probably, yea certainly was of earth, because it was here so appointed, and upon such an altar the fathers of old offered, Gen. 8. 20. Gen. 12. 7. &c. an altar of earth is opposed to gods of silver and gold, which are goodly to the eye, and so apt to bewitch the heart, and doth not unfitly figure out Christ the true Altar, (upon which we must offer the sacrifice of prayer) in his human nature. But whereas the Scholastical History saith, that the altar of the Tabernacle was to be made of earth, the contrary is true, it was not appointed to be made of earth, but of wood, and to be covered with brass, and Solomon overlaid the altar of the Temple with gold. So that the charge here given of making an altar of earth did not bind at all times, and in all places, but touching altars that were let go to ruin again, there being no further use of them, but for the present, or for a short time. Wherefore Simlerus rendereth this, as a reason, why it must be either of earth, or of unhewen stone, because such an altar cannot continue long; and yet withal he saith, that the Lord appointed it thus in opposition to the curiosity and cost bestowed by the Heathen upon their altars. And he also addeth, that this typified Christ in his human nature, being earth, as we are, and rude and unpollisht in outward appearance, as an Altar of unhewn stone. Whereas it is said, in every place where I record my name, it is not meant, that an Altar of earth should be set up in every such place, for an Altar of brass is afterwards appointed; but this is to be distinguished from the words before-going as a sentence by it self, In every place where I record my name, I will come to thee and bless thee, that is; wheresoever I shall appoint service to be done unto me, either in the wilderness, or in the land of Canaan afterwards, I will not be as Heathen gods drawn only by outward pomp and splendor, but though the monument set up for a memorial of me, be but a simple Altar of earth, I will there be with thee and bless thee. All Altars then besides the standing Altar, which should always continue, were to be made of earth, or unhewn stone, and therefore such an Altar was used by Gideon, Samuel, and Elijah; and Joshua, according to the appointment of Moses, Deut. 27. 5. at their first entrance into Canaan, built such an Altar, Jos. 8. 30. Calvin upon this saith notably, that they have given great occasion of erring, that have read this verse as one continued sentence, holding that such an Altar must be built after wards upon mount Zion; for in saying, in every place where, &c. an objection is rather met withal, Must we then always have recourse to this Altar to serve God here? The solution is, No, but what place soever God shall sanctify, if thou servest him there, he will bless thee. And in appointing this to be made of earth or unhewn stone, he provided against superstition to come, when the Temple and Altar to continue should be built, forsomuch as this kind of Altar could not stand long, nor any remembrance of it remain. Whereas otherwise they might haply have been drawn in time to come; leaving the place appointed to endure, to go to sacrifice where Altars had been formerly erected, thinking that they could not anywhere offer sacrifice more acceptably, then where their fathers in times past had worshipped.

Thou shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. For peace-offerings Calvin hath sacrifices of prosperity: but all others turn it peace-offerings, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, although it signifieth prosperity also, as effected by peace. For the Altar of unhewn stone, the reason, why the stone must not be hewed, is rendered, Because if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. The word translated tool, is Chereb, which cometh from destroying, and signifieth a sword, or any other edged tool, and because hereby blood is shed, it is counted polluted, and that polluted, which is cut with it. This, as one well noteth, may seem strange, that the thing which smootheth and polisheth should pollute, but so it is, in divine things that which in the wisdom of man should seem available in preaching of the Word, that is human eloquence, doth frustrate it and make it of none effect, 1 Cor. 1. 17. 2. 4, 5. Of Altars to be made of unhewn stone, see Deut. 27. 5, 6, &c.

Thou shalt not ascend by steps unto my Altar, lest thy filthiness be discovered, Chap. 27. 1. an Altar is appointed to be made three cubits high, and 2 Chron. 4. 1. 10 cubits high, so that, as Tremellius hath it, they must needs ascend by three stops to the one, and by ten to the other, how is it then that ascending [Quest.] by steps is here forbidden? I answer, this was to teach humility, because their Altar was low, as Simlerus noteth. But as other Ordinances here lasted but for a time, so did this. The true reason is that which is rendered, lest they should discover their filthiness: for as yet they were not so clothed, as it seemeth their privy parts in ascending were hidden, but afterwards linen breeches being made for the Priests, whereby they were hidden, their Altar was to be ascended to. The observation of Ferus here is excellent. All things are now appointed about the service of God mean and simple, but afterwards splendid and glorious. Was God herein contrary to himself? no, but by premising this Law of setting up so mean an Altar, he would teach that we must worship him rather piously then pompeously, for he seeketh rather the mind then gold. Wherefore he exacteth nothing curious or precious, that we might know, that the splendid things afterwards did not please of themselves, but only for the mind of the offerer, yet on the contrary side the pious mind pleaseth without these external things For so the sacrifices of the Ancients, Noah, Abraham, Abel, &c. who had simple low Altars, pleased God better then those of the Jews in after-times, in whose worship all things glittered with gold. So the Church then did most flourish, when God was rather religiously then splendidly worshipped, for then there were golden hearts, although base things only in outward appearance, but now all things outwardly are golden, but hearts inwardly earthen.

To show then that the internal service is more pleasing then the external, these things were thus ordained, and that the poor might not think, that they cannot so acceptably serve God, because not so splendidly, nor be despised in their simple appearance, when they come to worship. And mystically, saith the same Author, the earthen Altar figured out Christ of our earthen nature, in whom when we believe, as being very man, we make us an Altar of earth, and an Altar of stone, because our faith is fixed upon a rock or stone, and only upon stones firm and strong, that is, the Articles of our faith. And these must not be cut, that is, the unity of faith must not be broken. Or our works must be sincere, not divided by glossing, vain hypocrisy and seeking to please men rather then God, for then the work is polluted. Lastly, their not ascending by steps figured out our not mingling of carnal affections with divine things, for this were to discover our filthiness, as if when we are exercising of our gifts, we be proud of them.

To conclude, hereby is shown, that all things must be decent in the service of God, and nothing externally obscene: for even the Romans being heathen in their idolatrous worship provided by law, that their Flamines should not ascend by steps, which they called Greeces, above three, Aul. Gel. lib. 10. cap. 15.

CHAP. XXI.

THese are the Judgments which thou shalt propound unto them. The Hebrews begin here the sixth part of this Book, saith Simlerus, which they call Mishpatim, because in these two Chapters and part of Chap. 23. laws are set down, according to which the Judge was to judge them, and they ought to deal one with another, so that they tend to prevent and to end strifes amongst men. The laws about Ceremonies in the worship of God, and about sacrifices are called statutes and decrees, Exod. 12. 24, 43. Chap 27, 21. Chap. 29. 9 Levite. 3. 17. Chap. 6. 18, 22. as the law of the Decalogue, Commandments, and these judicial laws, judgments, by the Septuagint rendered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . just judgments. These were Politick laws for the government of that Commonwealth, not delivered by word of mouth, as the Decalogue, but by Moses for the peculiar use of the Israelites, and therefore they bind not us, but only teach with what equity our judicial laws ought to be made, especially for that reference which they have to the Decalogue by the punishments to offenders appointed, terrefying from the breach thereof, Which thou shalt propound or set before them: from hence Rab. Solomon gathereth, that it was unlawful for them to have their causes judged before Infidels, because they were set before them, that is, the Magistrates of the Israelites. And a like precept is had, 1 Cor. 6. where Christians are forbidden to seek to be judged by Infidels.

When thou buyest an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve thee, but in the seventh he shall go free. It was then allowed either for theft, when a man had nothing to restore, that he should be sold for a servant, or in the case of poverty a man might sell himself for the time; or a man being indebted, his son might therefore be taken as a servant, 2 King. 4. 1. the Hebrews make a distinction, saying, That such as were sold for theft, went out free in the beginning of the seventh year, but if the year of Jubilee happened within one year after, he went out free then, Levite 25. 40, 41. If a man sold himself he might do it for ten or 20 years, yet in the year of Jubilee, if that fell out in the mean season he must go out free. How the Hebrew servant must serve, see Levite. 25. 39, &c. not as with the service of a bond-servant with rigor, but as of an hired servant; and such like servants were amongst the Thessalians, they that were not servants by kind, but by fortune, being held in a middle condition between servants and freemen, and called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . To buy men for servants was then allowed, to figure out the servitude under the law, & how that when the seventh year, the time of grace by Christ came, we are set free, Joh. 8. 32. Esa. 61. 2. Luk. 4. 18. and the same word, as it is translated in Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used: for men under the law are as servants, Gal. 4. 25.

If he came alone, he shall go alone, &c. Deut. 15. 12, 13. Send him not away empty, but put liberally upon his neck of the flock, thy floor, and of thy wine-press. A servant set free, not having anything given him to begin the World withal, doth little differ yet from a servant, because he cannot stock any ground upon which he might bestow his labor, wherefore it was necessary, that his Master should be appointed to exercise some bounty towards him, and in the Comedy when Syrus had his liberty together with his wife given him, he had ground assigned unto him, and some money. What quantity should be given him is not set down, but he must be dealt liberally withal. And the reason hereof rendered, is first, v. 15. Remember that thou wert a servant, &c. that is, thou shalt let him go free, and deal thus with him in remembrance that thou wert a servant in Egypt, and camest out free, and laden with the spoils of Egypt, Levite. 25. 42. the reason is, Because they are my servants, whom I have redeemed out of the land of Egypt▪ They must therefore be set at liberty, because God's servants, and by their perpetual servitude he should be deprived of his right over them. If it shall seem, that in their serving six years he lost his right for that time, it is answered, it was not a mere servitude, to which they might be taken for that time, but to be used without rigor, v. 43. and thus the Lord was content to depart from his right, as it were, for a time, and to let them serve in such a manner, but he would continue a memorial of his grace in setting them free out of Egypt, by appointing the seventh year for the year of setting them free. And as the Jews, so Christians are admonished to use their servants well by this consideration, that they have a master in heaven▪ A second reason is rendered, Deut. 15. 18 Because he hath served thee double, or hath been worth a double hired servant in serving thee six years. That is, thou hast had much more benefit by him, then by an hired servant, because as the Hebrews say, an hired servant served but three years, which was but half his time. Some refer this to the greater, and more works done by a servant then by an hireling, in that his task doing was more exactly stood upon, he served abroad and at home in waiting upon his master, and both by day and by night, watching and looking to his cattle, when others slept, to this effect Simlerus. Of the reason of the Hebrews Calvin also speaketh, but approveth rather of the other, holding that to be a mere divination or conjecture of theirs. Lastly, servants must be thus dismissed, that the Lord may bless thee in all that thou doest, by God's blessing it should be restored again, that was thus departed withal. It was not thus with servants of other Nations, who served them, for they might be kept as servants forever, Levite. 25. 45, 46. and used as servants. And there it is also provided, that if any stranger had bought an Hebrew servant, he should not be suffered to rule rigorously over him, and if it may be, he must be redeemed, if either a Brother or an Uncle, or any kinsman would do it; if not, in the year of Jubilee he with his children must go out free. Whereas, v. 41. it is said, that the Hebrew servant shall go out free, both he and his children with him in the year of Jubilee, it is not meant, that then only he shall go free, for the seventh year is the ordinary time of his freedom, and his children's, if he had any, when he was bought for a servant; but in case he marrieth, and getteth children whilst he is a servant, and therefore refuseth to go out free the seventh year, because he cannot then go with his wife and children, but leaving them behind him, whereby his service is prolonged still, he shall yet go free when the year of Jubilee cometh, and those children with him; but of his wife nothing is spoken, because if she were of another Nation, she must serve still perpetually, although Tostatus denieth it, holding that even a stranger, an Hebrews wife shall then go free. For if the wife also had been meant, she should have been named; and moreover, strangers being servants, could not go out by their husbands right without injury to their masters, neither was the Jubilee ordained for them, but only for Hebrews. And this is held also by Lorinus.

Moreover, in appointing freedom in the year of Jubilee is meant, that if the Jubilee fell out within the seven years, he should then go free, and not serve out six years. This Calvin thinketh coact, and therefore bringeth another, the Jubilee may be taken more largely for the seventh year, which I can by no means subscribe to, neither doth he finally rest in it, but in that which hath been already said, verse. 40. He shall be as an hired servant, &c. He must not be hardly ruled over, verse. 43. in Hebrew, Bepharech, that is, saith Cajetan, being put to break the ground by drawing in a plough: but the word Pharas signifieth to break, not Pharec. The Hebrews by rigorous service understand service not determined, or which is not needful, as to dig, where there is no need, or to work till his masters coming, no time when being set. Maimonides. The Septuagint have it, Thou shalt not rack him with labor: but rigor also is in beating, Exod. 1. 14. and in threatening, Ephes. 6. 9.

The Rabbins in setting forth the state of an Hebrew servant say further, that he must not carry his masters vessel after him to the bath, nor untie his shoe, because he was enough dejected in being a servant, another Hebrew might do it, but not he. 2 The master must make the servant equal to himself in meat, drink and lodging, for which good usage it is said, Deut. 15. 16. because he is well with thee. Hence the saying came up, He that buyeth an Hebrew servant, buyeth himself a master. 3 Yet if he ran away, or were sick a year or more of his six, he must make them up afterwards, &c. Maimonides. But the servant and maid, which thou shalt have, shall be of the Heathen round about you, &c. verse. 44. Some hold that the Hebrews might take of the Canaanites for their servants: and whereas to the contrary it is said, that they were all to be destroyed; it is answered, That this charge held but during the time of the first conquest, and for such Cities only, as stood out against them, others that submitted, might be spared, and of them they might make servants, and for proof is brought Deut. 20. 16. But that place is plainly against this opinion, there being none allowance to spare any, but such as were not of these Nations, as will appear to any that shall look into it. Their Heathen servants then, touching whom this Law was made, were such as they should take in war, Deut. 20. 11. or buy with money of the Nations about Canaan, and Gibeonites saved unawares for their oaths sake. To rule over these servants, and to keep them to themselves, and their children, as their possession forever they are allowed, nothing being spoken against the hard usage of them. Yet because there must be a difference betwixt the people of God and the Heathen that know not God; the Hebrews say, that things equal and just only must be done unto them, neither might they use them tyrannically, as the Heathen did their servants, and because they must be imitatours of God, whose mercy is towards all. And the points of equal dealing with them, they say, were, 1 Not to make his yoke heavy upon him. 2 To give him meat and drink of all sorts. 3 Not to use him contemptuously by word or deed, because he was given him for service, not for shame and contempt. 4 Not to refuse to hear his plea, Job 31. 13. Thus Maimonides. The difference then betwixt an Hebrew servant and another was. 1 In his usage, he might be used with more rigor then an Hebrew. 2 He must serve forever both he and his posterity after him, being left by the father to the son. 3 He might be sold from one to another, as might not an Hebrew, verse. 42. This is mystically applied by Hesychius to the Heathen subjected unto Christ, a Jew by the preaching of the Gospel: for they are his possession, and he holdeth them as his servants forever. And hitherto I have digressed to other places touching this point of servitude also, now to return, Vers. 3. If he were married, his wife shall go out with him, that is, his wife whom he brought to serve his master with him, and by the same reason, his children begotten of her in that time. But if his master hath given him a wife, and she hath born him children, she and her children shall not go out with him, but remain to his master. This is not to be understood of an Hebrew woman, but of an Heathen bondwoman, for an Hebrew woman, as well as a man, must go out free the seventh year, Deut. 15. 12. Touching the masters power to give a wife to his bond-man, Maimonides saith, that if any Hebrew were sold to a master, his master might compel him to take a bondwoman, which he would give him to wife, of her to beget him more slaves; but if any man sold himself, he could not be compelled unto it. And it was further provided, that he who had no Hebrew wife and children, could not be compelled to take an Heathen, neither might two Heathen women be put upon him, but one only. If it be demanded, how this may be justified to separate man and wife? Simlerus answereth [Quest.] well, that here is no separation allowed, but of those that were unlawfully coupled together, for if she were an Hebrew, she went out free with him, and therefore the wife left behind was an Heathen, with whom it was unlawful for an Hebrew to marry. And touching the tolerating of a master, to give such a wife to his Hebrew servant, it was done as divorces, for the hardness of their hearts.

If the servant shall say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free, &c. In this case his ear must be bored, and he shall be a servant forever: but this, forever, is to be understood but till the year of Jubilee, Levite. 25. 41. and thus Maimonides explaineth it, or by this word, forever, may be understood only during his masters life, he could not leave him for a bond-man to his son after him, for it is said, He shall serve him forever, not any other man, to whom he shall leave him. And thus these words, forever, are used, 1 Sam. 1. 22. whereas it is said by the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that an Heathen servant shall serve forever: Jerome will have it understood in like manner, but till the year of Jubilee, because it is written by Van Holem, intimating the Jubilee meant. But there is no such thing anywhere expressed: but contrariwise, the time set for servants of other Nations, is without end, for them and their children. And the servant that will not go out free, must be brought before the Judges, in Hebrew, the God's, because they were God's Deputies, so likewise, Psal. 82. Yet Maimonides saith, that none were called so, but Judges in Israel only, who were wise men, and sought out for their wisdom, and ordained by the imposition of hands. If the master might have taken and bored his ear, there might have been deceit used, he saying through covetousness, that his servant was willing, when he was not; wherefore he is appointed to bring him out before the Judges, that they might examine him, and then finding him willing, appoint him to be bored, which being done, the master taketh him to the post, or to the door, that is, either at the place of judgment, or rather at his own house, and boareth thorough his ear, this being appointed as an apt mark for a servant, who must always be ready to hearken to and obey his masters precepts. And this sharp iron awl, wherewith he was bored thorough the midst of his right ear did well figure out, saith one, the sharp precepts of the Law, whereby they were in servitude, till the death of the Law their master, and the Jubilee of grace came.

From this custom of boring thorough the ear they excepted a Priest, because if he had been so blemished, he could not have returned again to his Priestly Dignity. In all the East-parts they were wont to mark their servants, or fugitives, or malefactors upon their foreheads, as with a mark of ignominy, saith Calvin; but God would have the Hebrews to bear the badge of their servitude upon the ear.

And if a man selleth his daughter, she shall not go out as men-servants do, but if she pleaseth not her master, &c. This may seem to be contrary to Deut. 15. 12, 17. where there is one Law both for men and for women-servants. But the case is only different, there women are spoken of, that are sold by the appointment of the Law, or that sell themselves: here is put the case only of a man selling his daughter being a girl, in which kind of sales the Hebrews say, a respect was always had unto a future marriage with the master, or with his son. And they say also, that it was not lawful for a man to sell his daughter, but to one that might betroath her. It is meant here then, in case a man's daughter be thus bought, she shall not go out at the end of seven years, or in the Jubilee, because being betrothed to her master, she cannot be at liberty again, but either by a bill of divorce, or by his death, as other women betrothed are.

If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed, &c. Some read it, Who hath not betrothed her, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying not, is in the Text, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to himself, in the margin, and this is followed by the Chaldee, and by some Greek Translations; but Theodotion and Symmachus have it, Not betrothed: but the first is to be preferred, he cannot, when he hath betrothed her, reduce her to the state of a mere servant, or sell her to another, but he must cause her to be redeemed: in the Septuagint, He shall redeem her, that is, he shall let her go free even before the seventh year, she shall not be retained any longer by him: and by a stranger here, to whom it is said, he shall not sell her, is meant not only one of another Nation, but of another Tribe: so Calvin, who yet alloweth not of our reading, betrothed her to himself, but the negative, hath not betrothed, because he thinketh it absurd, that a Law should be made against his selling her to another after betroathing. But there is nothing so absurd, but that people would have done, if they had not been by Law restrained. Amongst the Athenians a man might sell his sons, but Solon forbade the selling of daughters, unless it were for whoredom. In the Laws of the old Romans, which were the Laws of the twelve Tables, the like was allowed. and by the Law of Constantine, a man pressed with great poverty, might sell his children to relieve himself. So that the power of fathers was great over their children, some remainder of which is still kept afoot in their binding them to masters. Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her, that is, failing of that which was expected at his hands, viz. that he should have loved her, and kept her as his wife; whereas after betroathing she pleased him not, that is, he liked not to have her for his wife. By this Law God provided against whoredom, because when a man took a maid-servant, he must first betroath her, and so if he did go in unto her, this was not inordinate, as it would have been, if otherwise. But yet herein a great corruption was tolerated, that after this he might refuse her, but it was for the hardness of their hearts, as is spoken of divorces, Matth. 19.

And if he hath betrothed her to his son, he shall do unto her after the manner of daughters. Hereby it appeareth, that the former verse is to be read affirmatively also, for first the case is put, If he hath betrothed her to himself, and here, If he hath betrothed her to his son; and the conclusion is the same, in case he giveth her not food and raiment, and the duty of marriage, she shall go out free. To do unto her after the manner of daughters, is to give her a dowry, as Chap. 22. 16, 17. If he take him another wife, he shall not diminish her food, raiment, or marriage-duty, that is, if she being espoused to him, he yet neglecting her marrieth another, he shall deal by her in providing for her, as by his espoused wife, so Rabanus. Or rather if besides her, he taketh another wife, he must do these three things unto her, about the last of which there is a question, what is meant. The Hebrew word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by some rendered marriage-duty, but by some, pactum, as Simlerus hath it, or constitutionem, as Calvin, expounding it of all such things, as were agreed upon. The word properly signifieth humiliation, and is put here for his going in unto her as an husband to his wife, and accordingly the Septuagint render it, companying together, and the Rabbins, going in unto her after the way of all the earth, as Gen. 19. 31. And besides these three they say a dowry of 50 shekels must be given her, Exod. 22. 17. and the conditions of the dowry must be performed. 1 To heal her, if she be sick. 2 To redeem her, if she be taken captive. 3 To bury her, if she be dead. 4 If she surviveth him after his death, to let her be nourished with his goods, and to dwell in his house as long as she liveth a Widow. 5 To nourish her children with his goods till they be espoused. 6 To let her male-children to enjoy her dowry besides their portions in his goods. And on the other side the wife must, 1 Let the works of her hands to be her husbands. 2 Her presence and attendance must be upon him. 3 He must eat of the fruits of her goods. 4 If she dieth before him, he must inherit them. Thus the tradition of the Scribes, saith Maimonides. Rabanus addeth at the end of this law after these words, She shall go out free, but if he hath given her to an Hebrew servant; and expoundeth it, if he hath not given her to his son, but to an Hebrew-servant of his, she shall together with him go out free, but whence he had this addition I cannot tell. And mystically he saith, that an hearer, who hath joined himself to any teacher, is here figured out, who must either still continually have his due teaching at such a teachers hands, or be let go to choose his teacher where he thinketh good, and not be turned over to a stranger, that is, to an Heretic.

Whoso smiteth his neighbor that he dieth, shall be surely put to death, but if he lay not in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, &c. How is a man said to be delivered into the hands of another to be killed? Rabanus answereth, not that he whosoever he be, that is killed, is not by God delivered into his [Quest.] hands that killeth him, but when the slayer seeketh it not, but God offereth him to be slain, this being God's act only, he is said by him to be delivered: If he doth maliciously kill, he is by God delivered also, but in this case, he both killeth and God delivereth, God not delivering him unjustly, but he slaying him unjustly, and therefore is worthy to be punished, not because he slayeth him whom God would not have slain, for that cannot be, but because through iniquity, for he offereth not his service to God bidding, but to his own malignant lust putting him on. The vulgar Latin hath it, v. 12. Qui percutit vicinum, volens occidere, which is added for expression, as opposed to smiting unawares: for indeed the malicious will of the smiter is that which maketh his killing mortal to himself. And according to this for the general, that the murderer shall die, it was decreed long before, Gen. 9. and again, Levite. 24. 17. and v. 19, 20, 21, 22.

He that killeth a beast shall restore it, but he that killeth a man shall die, there shall be one judgment for the native and for the stranger. The Cornelian Law of the Romans adjudgeth the murderer also to death, and him that maketh a tool or selleth one poison for this purpose, or was any way the cause of death. And Numb. 35. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. He that smiteth a man with an iron tool, or he whose hand smiteth him with a stone or wooden Instrument is a murderer, and must die, a kinsman must kill him. But how is this to be understood, [Quest.] might he kill the murderer without proceeding legally against him? Simlerus answereth, that it is meant, the kinsman should accuse the murderer before the Judge, and he being upon proof condemned publicly to die, this was the kinsmans slaying of him, for that there must be a legal proceeding, appeareth, because no man must be put to death, but by the mouth of two or three witnesses. Or else, the Judge not doing his office, the kinsman meeting him might kill him, or if he killed him when he met him howsoever through anger for his kinsmans death, the cause being proved just, he was to be tolerated herein. Calvin thinketh, that this is no Ordinance to allow private revenge, but an opening of the danger in case that a murderer is not by the Judge punished with death, a kinsman will take revenge, & slay the murderer therefore, and this revenge being just, he should be tolerated herein, because he was carried unto it by the love of his own blood, which is natural to everyone, but this was only tolerated for the hardness of their hearts, not approved. Tostatus saith, that it is to be understood after his condemnation by the Judge, or afterwards finding him out of a city of refuge, & this was granted for the hardness of their hearts, because if the kinsman did not kill the murderer with his own hands, he thought that he did nothing, yet he must not kill him by any other death but by strangling. I cannot subscribe to Calvin, because the words appointing the kinsman to slay the murderer are the plain words of a positive law often repeated the kinsman shall kill him. Yet I do not think, that he might do it without a legal proceeding, for this had been to open a gap to many murders and barbarous confusion. When it is said then, when he meeteth him he shall slay him it is meant, so soon as he can apprehend him, he shall prosecute the law against him, and he being publicly condemned, execute him. Or rather, as appeareth by the words following, if he met him before he came at a City of refuge, he might instantly slay him, if not, he must proceed by order of law against him, which yet is not spoken to animate to present revenge, but to excite to a speedy flight, because that people was so violent, that otherwise their fury could not be stayed. Whereas Tostatus saith, he must be strangled, Maimonides saith contrariwise. The death of a murderer as of Idolaters was with the sword, & by strangling, he that lieth with another man's wife, he that smiteth his father or mother, he that stealeth a soul of Israel, the Elder that rebelleth against the decree of the Senate, Deut. 17. 12. the false prophet, and he that prophesieth in the name of another god. Besides these there were two other kinds of death more terrible: the one by burning, thus the Priests daughter playing the whore must suffer, he that lieth with his own daughter, her daughters daughter, or his sons daughter, or his wives daughter, or with her daughters daughter, or sons daughter, or with his mother in law, or with his mother in law, or her fathers mother in law. The other of stoning, thus he that lay with his own mother must suffer, or with his fathers wife, or with his daughter in law, or with a betrothed maid, or with a male, or with a beast, the woman that lieth down to a beast, the blasphemer, the idolater, he that giveth his seed to Molo • h, he that hath a familiar spirit, the Wizard, the inticer to idolatry, the Witch, the profaner of the Sabbath, he that curseth father or mother, or rebelleth against thē. I will give him a place, to which he shall flee. This place was appointed afterwards both on this side Jordan & beyond: for there must be 3 Cities of refuge in the one place, & 3 in the other, Numb. 35. 11, 12, &c. & unto one of these he that had killed a man unawares might flee, neither was it lawful for any man to kill him there, but he must be by order of law brought back & tried before the Judges, & if it be found, that he killed him unawares, he should return again to the City of refuge, & dwell there till the death of the High Priest, and then return to the inheritance of his fathers, but if before this time he were found out of the City of refuge, the kinsman, who was appointed to be the revenger of the blood of the slain might kill him. And no price must be taken to let a willful murderer go free, or to suffer one that hath killed unawares to live out of a City of refuge, till the death of the High Priest, because blood polluteth the land, & is not expiated but by shedding the blood of the murderer Whereas there may seem to be something contradictory in this law, for that the avenger of blood is allowed to kill him, that hath shed blood out of the City of refuge, and yet he must come forth to be tried in the Congregation, whether he did it willfully or no, it is easily reconciled, he might kill him if he found him coming out of the City of refuge of his own mind, but not called by public authority to be tried. Tostatus saith, that when kinsman met him that had killed, and assaulted him, if he by defending himself slew this kinsman, he should not be punished for it, because he was not as a public person, neither did he pursue the killer out of duty or necessity, but only through permission to avoid greater inconveniencies. For the time limited, when he might return to his possession, viz. at the death of the High Priest, Because then, saith Calvin, another coming on, he made peace and reconciliation betwixt God and man; and therefore good reason there was, that all offenses should then be remitted. But the mystery was without doubt chiefly respected herein, viz. our deliverance by Christ his death, who were before as Exiles, and could not come to our heavenly inheritance. The like law to this, saith Philostratus, was before in Egypt, and it was called Memphitarum lex, he that killed another, although against his will, must flee to the Gymnosophists, and being absolved by them he might return, having first sacrificed at the grave of the slain. And the Romans afterwards had the like Law for acquitting him that killed against his will. He that killeth another is wont to be absolved, viz. if he did it not with a mind to kill, and he that killeth not, but would have killed, is condemned as a murderer. This providing for one that killed accidentally, to flee to another place was a kind of banishing of him, although his will was in no fault, and this punishment he must notwithstanding undergo that murder [Note.] might appear to be most heinous, and that one man might have the greater care of the life of another. And in the Roman Laws Hadrianus provided, that if lasciviousness were the cause, whereupon the murder arose, the party killing, although against his will, should be banished for five years, and pay two thousand to the father of the slain, if he were a poor man, that others might take warning of falling into the like course of lasciviousness. Of the heinousness of murder, see Gen. 9. 6. This Law of appointing Cities of refuge is again repeated Deut. 19. 1, 2, &c. being made Numb. 35. 6, 11, &c. three must first be appointed, and afterwards the whole land being conquered, three more. And a case is set down, whereby it may appear, who is accounted to kill another against his will. In all which places it is so plain, that he who striketh another with any instrument fit to kill, although but then provoked, or that doth anything purposely to take away another man's life, is a murderer, as Calvin also hath it, that I cannot but wonder that even in some such case men are often acquitted, as not guilty, and the land cannot but be polluted hereby.

But if a man cometh presumptuously upon his neighbor, and slayeth him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. Deut. 19. 11. If he shall flee to any of the Cities of refuge, the Elders of that City shall take him from thence, that he may die. First it seemeth, that the altar was a place of refuge, and then certain Cities were moreover appointed, and if he that was pursued were safe in one of these Cities, much more fleeing to the Altar, and this of fleeing to the Altar continued still, as we may see in the example of Joab, and of Adonijah, and amongst the Heathen the Temple was an Asylum, a place of safety from pursuers, and so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , auferre, and a stereticon, because he could not be taken from thence. Anciently Temples, Altars, and Images were Asyla, for those that fled unto them. Amongst the Romans, that place between the Tower and the Capitol was appointed by Romulus and Remus for an Asylum, afterwards the statues of Emperors. And amongst the Athenians, the Temple of Mercy, built by the posterity of Hercules. And the like course was taken amongst Christians; Theodosius and Valent. Emperors upon this reason decree, that Temples shall be places of refuge to those that flee unto them, because Idolaters appointed Temples dedicated to Idols to be Sanctuaries for the distressed, from which none might take them; and therefore, say they, much more ought we thus to honor our true Religion, wherefore whatsoever was within the first gates of the Temple, Gardens, Courts, Halls, &c. were all Sanctuaries. And if any did take those away that fled to these places, it should be a capital crime. And when Alaricus warred against the Romans, he commanded that all which fled to the Temples should be spared. And for this privilege stood Chrysostom most earnestly. And Augustine threateneth Boniface a Count with excommunication for taking one away from the Sanctuary, and this hath been confirmed by many decrees of Councils. But Sanctuaries have been greatly abused, as we may gather by the decree of Justinian, There is no place of refuge for adulterers and stealers of virgins, thieves, and murderers; and therefore he much abridged the privilege of Sanctuaries, recounting this first Law of Moses, allowing places of refuge only for such as offended unawares. But the privileges of these places have notwithstanding amongst the Pontificians grown so great, that wicked persons in any kind have been there patronized, and that, as Calvin hath it, out of a corrupt imitation of the Heathen, as they mixed God with Idols in their adulterate worship. And herein they have not been so careful, as the Heathen, to distinguish betwixt the guilty and the innocent, but by entertaining the vilest, they have made the house of God a den of thieves. Whereas the Heathen took away sacrilegious and impure persons from Temples, according to that saying of one related by Livy, Seeing the whole preface of holy things, or Sacrifices, forbiddeth them the Sanctuary that have not pure hands, will ye suffer your inward parts to be defiled with the bloody body of a robber? The abuses of Sanctuaries being taken away, and they being maintained only for those that flee from the unjust rage of them that are too mighty for them, and that have rashly and inconsiderately offended, there may still well enough be some use made of them, so that respect be had to proceed according to the first constitutions of the Lord, and that there be not over-many, so Simlerus. And I see no reason, but forsomuch as there have always been Sanctuaries to flee unto, as the case required, both amongst the people of God and the Heathen, there should be such also still in all Christian Countries and Nations, provision being made against the abuse. These words, Thou shalt take him from mine altar, the Targum Hierosol. expoundeth, yea, although he be the High Priest that ministereth at mine altar. Whereas it is said, If a man cometh presumptuously upon his neighbor, he that by treachery killeth another, shall die for it also, but all malicious murdering is spoken of in this phrase, because there is a kind of presumption, whereby he doth insult over him, to bring him thus under his foot, although he doth secretly contrive his destruction.

He that striketh his father or his mother shall die, and he that curseth father or mother: the same Law is also, Levite 20. 9. and ye shall fear everyone his mother, and his father, Levite. 19. 3. And again, If any man hath a perverse and rebellious son, not obeying his father and mother, and they have chastised him, he continuing still disobedient, they shall bring him out to the Elders of his City, &c. Deut. 21. 18, 19. All these Laws serve to set down the duty of children to their parents, and their punishment if they sin against them, and therefore they are to be considered together. Children must fear their parents, that is, fear to offend them; and if any child doth not, but rebelleth, and is incorrigible, they must bring him forth, that he may be stoned to death. There was a Law, saith Calvin, amongst the Romans of old, whereby parents had granted unto them the power of life and death over their children, it being presumed that no man would deal unjustly with his own bowels, but since it being found by experience, that some are like unto cruel beasts, yea, worse to their own children, this liberty hath been taken away. And here it is provided, that their cause should be heard and judged publicly, that if the son accused had anything to say for himself, he might be heard. And it is to be noted, that although they could not accuse him of any particular crime, yet if they could say that he was a glutton, and a drunkard, he should be stoned to death, intemperance being hereby branded as most hateful. If any son or daughter striketh father or mother, although death followeth not, he must be put to death, yea if he doth but smite him with his tongue by cursing, hereby showing a vilipending and contemning of him, he must be put to death for this also. Thus heinously doth God take it, that they from whom any hath received life and nourishment should not be honored, but contemned by him. The Hebrews upon these Laws note, that any striking of a parent was not deadly to the striker, or any malediction, because there may be striking lightly and in jest, and a light reviling speech suddenly falling from the mouth: but an earnest and violent striking, or a malediction out of contempt. The Rabbins say; that striking leaving some print is meant, and cursing is either of parents alive or dead. For such as kill their parents here is no Law made, but it is implied in this, if the striker must die, then the murderer, the parricide by a most terrible death.

It is reported of Solon, when he gave Laws to the Athenians, that he gave none against parricide, because he thought that none would be so wicked; as to deprive him of life, from whom he received it. But the Ancients sewed a parricide up in a sack together with a dog, a cock, an ape, and a viper, and then having drowned him, cast him forth to the wild beasts to be devoured. Plato following Moses, banisheth those that struck their parents and drove them from all holy things, and if at any time they returned, their punishment was death, and they that ate and drank with them were unclean. But for parricides he appointed a most heinous death, and exposing without burial. If any man shall think this is too great rigor for striking to put one to death, it is answered, Levite. 20. 9. His blood shall be upon his own head, as if he had said, Let no man speak against it, for he averreth this punishment to be just, and that the party punished is only in fault. And from this we may gather, what a great sin it is to strike, curse, or to rebel against a Magistrate, Master, or Governor, who are in some sort fathers and mothers, and do represent the Divine Authority.

He that stealeth a man and selleth him, shall be put to death. See the same also Deut. 24. 7. against stealing any of his brethren, the children of Israel, and so both the Greek and the Chaldee render it here. This, saith Simlerus, is placed between the other two against smiting, and cursing of parents, because the man-stealer taking away children by stealth, when they are little, is an occasion that they afterwards offer violence by word or deed unto them unwittingly; and therefore, as guilty of these indignities, they are justly appointed to be punished with death, and because of the excellency of him that is stolen above other things of this world, in that he beareth the image of God. Moreover; liberty and freedom from bondage is a thing most desirable, as a dignity; and bondage abhorred by such as are born free: wherefore to spoil any man of his liberty, and to sell him for a bond-man, as the Plagiarii did, was a most heinous sin and capital. Lastly, they that stole an Hebrew, sold him to the Heathen afar off, thus both exterminating him from the Church of God, and frustrating the mighty act, that sometime God did for them in bringing them out of bondage.

The Romans condemned those that sinned thus, if they were of the baser sort; to dig in mines, if of the better, half their goods being taken away, to be banished forever, Within the compass of this sin it is to be thought, that Monks and Jesuits come, that against their parents consent receive young persons into their Orders; and little better do they, that thus take them to the wars by enticement, and they that steal men's daughters to marry them. Constantine's Law is, that Plagiarii should be cast to the beasts, if they were servants; if free, they should come into the place of sword-playing, and there be destroyed without any weapon given them to defend themselves. These two Laws, verse. 15, 16, 17. interlaced together, Rabanus applieth mystically, the first to those that blaspheme God their Father, or the Church their Mother, the second to heretics, who steal men's souls away, and enthrall them to errors, they shall both perish everlastingly, therefore death shall be their reward.

If two strive together, and one striketh another with stone or fist, and he dieth not, but lieth in bed, &c. By striking with stone or fist are meant all other ways of hurting him, either afar off or near at hand, if by any means one hurteth another, so that he lieth by it, but dieth not, he shall be innocent, that is, from the sin of murder, but not from all sin, for to be angry with a brother unadvisedly, or to rail upon him is a breach of God's law. If then in striving one hurteth another, he shall as he is worthy, pay so much as the time of the hurt man's lying in bed and healing cometh to. Whereas this may seem not to be punishment enough, the Rabbins say, that if his striking made a blemish he must pay for that also, according to Levite. 24. 19, 20. and that he must pay for the pain suffered, and lastly, for the shame and dishonor done to him, if there were any. For blows, whereby little hurt was done, the Magistrates (they say) appointed other mulcts: for kicking with the foot, five shekels; for striking with the fist, 13 shekels; with the palm of the hand, one shekel; if he wrung him by the car, plucked off his hair, or did spit upon him 100 shekels, and that for every time so much. But what if a man after that he [Quest.] began to go by his staff, relapseth and dieth? To this, saith Simlerus, the Hebrews answer, that the striker in this case must suffer death: but the Roman laws not, unless he were deadly wounded, because there is no just cause of putting to death when the wounded liveth long after before he departeth, Paul. lib. sentent. sub. tit. ad Corneliam de Sicariis & Veneficis. Touching the healing of him smitten, the Rabbins say, that the striker might not be permitted to do it, if he could and would, nor a Surgeon of his, but some other approved one to be paid by him, and if the wounded hindered his own cute by refusing to follow the Surgeons direction, the striker should not be tied to pay for his healing.

If any man shall smite his man-servant or his maid with a rod, and he dieth under his hand, vengeance shall surely be taken on him, but if he continueth a day or two, &c. Amongst the Romans of old, the Master had power of life and death over his servant, and this continued to the days of Augustus, when Vedius Pollio cast his servants offending into the fish-ponds to the Lampreys, and in former times they cast their servants to the wild beasts upon displeasure, which liberty was taken away by the Petronian law. And there was a Judge appointed to hear the complaints of servants, and to moderate their cruelty, and covetousness about their food. The Emperor Adrian banished Umbra, a Matron five years for handling of her maid-servants most heinously. Here if a master beateth his servant to death, he must be killed, as if he had slain another man, for this is meant by revenge appointed to be taken on him: if he smote him but with a rod, and he continueth, that is, able to go about his business a day or two after, he shall not be revenged, but if he smote him with a sword or any other instrument sit to kill, and he dieth, although it be a year after, he shall, say the Rabbins, be put to death for it. And this, they say, is to be understood of strangers that be servants, not of Hebrews, whose privilege was greater, nor of other men's servants, for who so beateth one of them that he dieth, although divers days after, he shall suffer for it as for killing another man, and over Hebrew servants they must not rule with rigor, Levite. 25. 39, &c.

When men strive together and strike a woman big with child, so that her child depart from her, but death followeth not, he shall be punished, &c. By death here, as all Expositors agree, the death not only of the woman, but of her child also is meant, which the Septuagint make plain by their translation, and it agreeth with reason, because the child in his mothers womb is a man, consisting of a body and a reasonable soul, and it is more heinous to kill him now then being born, because his light is extinguished before he cometh to see the light, he is murdered in the womb as in his own house, and not in the field, as Calvin speaketh. But why shall the man that smote the woman be punished, although death follow not? Ans. Because the woman and child [Quest.] were endangered, and are put to pain and weakened hereby, therefore in way of compensation satisfaction must be made to the husband. But why to the husband and not to her? Answ. Because he is the head, and governeth [Quest.] in domestic affairs, and the child is reckoned to the father, whose name he beareth, and not the mothers. If it be further demanded, whether in case that death followeth, it be to be understood of any child how little time soever [Quest.] the mother hath gone with it? I answer with Simlerus, that we must distinguish between a child formed and unformed, if the child were an Embryo, not yet perfected, although it perished, the party, by whose stroke, was not to be put to death, but for such only as was come to perfection, so likewise Augustine, and Jerome in Decretis, Causa 32. Quaest. 2. Cap. Mosis, and the words of the Text, life for life, seem to make for it, that a man's life must not be paid but for one living and perfected, and the Septuagint make this plain by rendering, not death, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not formed. If it be said, this seemeth [Quest.] contrary to the former law, because it was not a willful murder, but accidental, seeing when two men strive together, if a woman be stricken, she is stricken not purposely, but by chance, for which a man must not lose his life? I answer, there was fighting and striving, and therefore the stroke given was voluntary, although not to her, yet it lighting upon her, the striker shall be judged, as if he had directed it against her. Lastly, if it be demanded, whether [Quest.] without any redemption in this case then a man must be put to death? Simlerus answereth, that a mulct might be imposed, and his life spared according to the opinion of the Hebrews, because it is not here added, as in the case of willful murder, no price shall be taken, and therefore he understandeth this, life shall go for life, that is, if it be not redeemed. And the same do the Rabbins teach of the penalties following, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, &c. viz. if a price be not paid to save them, to which last I willingly subscribe, and the reason is good, because in case of willful murder only it is provided, that no price shall be taken, Numb. 35. 31. and therefore out of this case there might be a redemption for money. Moreover, when a man in striving hath lost an eye or an hand or a foot, or a leg or arm hath been broken, his work, whereby he getteth his living, if he be poor, is hindered hereby, and to have his striker punished with the like will do him no good, but to have a sum of money for his maintenance. Lastly, the hurt which one man can bear, if it be done to some other, may endanger his life, and therefore it is to be held, that these things were to be ordered by the discretion of the Judge, and if he thought it fit to punish the striker with the like, or in his purse, he had liberty to judge herein, as best reason and equity directed. But I see no reason, why in the case of death following, any price might be taken, because here is blood shed, and blood defileth the land, for which no expiation can be made but by blood. For this same law touching hurts, see Levite. 24. 19. Now in appointing such revenge to be taken, God doth not give liberty to any private revenge, but still the Judges must judge in all cases, and the striking of terror into men apt to be injurious was respected, it being the duty of everyone patiently to suffer, and not in his heat to seek to take revenge upon his striker so soon as he is hurt, as Christ, the best expounder of the Law interpreteth it, Math. 5. 38, 39.

This law Talionis was of force amongst the Romans also, in the 12 tables, where other hurts are appointed to be punished with the like, but not the breaking of a bone which was to be recompensed with money. And that the like is done to them that hurt, when their purse is punished, appeareth by the saying of Sampson, from whom when the Philistines had taken his wife, he burnt their Corn-fields, and said, as they had done to him, so he did unto them, which was only meant, of evil rendered for evil, one evil for another.

But if any man shall strike the eye of his servant or of his maid, he shall let him go free for his eye, &c By the servant here the Hebrews understand a stranger, a servant, and not an Hebrew, for if he be hurt, there must be satisfaction given to him as to another; but an Heathen servant of his own was to be recompensed only with freedom, and yet not so, unless he were circumcised, and unless he utterly lost the use of his eye. And the like law is for the loss of a tooth, an ear, or any other member, yea, if by accident the Master were the cause of the perishing thereof. God that is the God of servants as well as of masters, provided herein better for servants, then the Romans, by whose more favorable Law a servant being hardly used by his master was to be sold to another man, but his master must take the price, whereas by this law he must lose all, that he cost him.

If an ox shall gore a man or a woman that he dieth, he shall be stoned to death, &c. Verse 29. But if the Ox used to gore in times past, &c, The shedding of innocent blood is so heinous before God, that not only man but a beast that killeth must be killed; and his flesh as unclean might not be eaten, because it was as the blood of the man slain, and being stoned, his own blood was still in him, and the flesh of any creature, whose blood was not let out, might not be eaten. And if an Ox did any hurt, his master must pay for it, and so must he do for hurt done by any living creature in his power, saith Maimonides; for the ox is put for an instance, a dog, or horse or any other creature that a man keepeth, being understood also. This law was followed by the Romans in their twelve tables, Si quedrupes pauperiem fecerit, eum Domi • tus, &c. If any beast shall hurt a man which tendeth to the impoverishing of him, the Master shall pay for it, or lose his beast, The same law was also given by Solon to the Athenians, and by Plato. And by Draco a law-giver of the Athenians it was enacted, that even inanimate things that were the cause of a man's death, should be cast out of the bounds of the Country, as guilty. And accordingly when the statue of Theago • es fell upon a man and flew him, his children accused the statue, and by the Thasians it was condemned to be cast into the sea. If the ox used to gore in times past, and his master was told of it, but neglected to keep him from hurting afterwards, he also was guilty of the blood shed, and must die also for it, or he must pay a price for the redemption of his life. He must evidently be in fault, the quality of his beast formerly coming to his knowledge, or else he cannot be thus punished. For in times past, is yesterday and the third day in the Hebrew, but not only two, but many days before going are meant hereby, as also Exod. 4. 10. Pet. Comestor, besides the loss of the ox killing a man, saith, his master must pay 30 shekels, if he were a servant that was killed, and in this manner respect was had to the 30 generations coming from Ham adjudged to servitude, see verse 32. Before no price might be taken for blood-shed, but here there might, because this was no willful murder in the master, but accidental, and all these laws tend to show how precious the death of any man is in the sight of God.

The next law here provideth for the safety of beasts; when a man openeth a pit, if any beast falleth into it, the owner shall pay for it, and have the dead beast; if one man's ox goareth another man's ox to death, the living and dead shall be divided between them, but if that ox hath used in times past to gore, the owner shall pay him for the dead ox. The Hebrews set down the depth of the pit two foot and a half, for if it be loss, although a beast perish in it, he shall not be damnified that oweth the pit. Here is no mulct set down, if a man falleth into it, because he hath reason to keep himself out.

Now forsomuch as God respecteth not oxen so much but men, according to that, 1 Cor. 9. 9. Mystically by the ox and the asse falling into the pit, the clean beast and the unclean, the Believer and the Infidel may be understood, and by opening a pit, the opening of the mystical things of the Scriptures: for the Doctor is to hide these from the believer, that is weak, and from the unbeliever, because being opened unto them, they may haply be scandalized, and so destroyed hereby. Again, by the ox goaring his fellow we may understand one Christian being an occasion of sin unto another, in this case the living ox must he slain and divided, and the dead also, that is, he must be sharply reproved that he may be killed by repentance as it were, as 1 Cor. 5. 5. and so the keepers of them both may be satisfied, and the dead is divided, when they both condole for the sin of him that is fallen, seeking his restoring. But if any man giving offense to the destruction of others be suffered by his Keeper, he bringeth his offense upon himself.

CHAP. XXII.

IF a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. By the ox here all greater cattle are understood, and by the sheep the lesser, as Deut. 14. 4. saith Simlerus. But in the Hebrew Canons it is plainly expressed, thas only for an ox five-fold is to be paid, and for a sheep four, and not for any other thing stolen, for which the thief paid but double, because there was more profit, use and service by these to the owners then by any other beasts, and these were used for sacrifice. Yet Josephus saith, that they that stole living beasts of any kind, were to be punished likewise five-fold and four-fold, but not for stealing gold, silver, stuff, &c. It may seem more probable which the Hebrew Canons have, because if a five or fourfold restitution had been meant for other cattle also, it had been as easy to name any out of the herd or flock; and for paying double for other things stolen, there is a plain ground, v. 4. Yet because it is there said, If the thing stolen be found in his hand alive, whether ox, asse or sheep, he shall pay double; it appeareth, that not only oxen and sheep are meant in this law, but under them all greater and smaller cattle, for which restitution must be made five-fold or four-fold, because if the asse must be paid for but double, if found alive, as the ox; by the like reason he must be paid for five-fold, if dead or sold. The word translated sheep is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying a lamb or a kid, as Exod. 12. 3. and it may be rendered any small cattle, as Deut. 14. 4. lamb, kid, sheep, goat, &c. Now for stealing this, four sheep must be given, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereupon Cajetan gathereth, that the penalty for stealing a lamb was greater then for stealing an ox, because four sheep were appointed to be given for one lamb, and not four lambs, and this was more then five oxen for one. But as the word is varied in speaking of a sheep, so it is in speaking of an ox, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and therefore this observation is overcurious, the thing to be noted from the varying of the word rather is, that if the thing called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth both a lamb and sheep; be a sheep, four sheep shall be restored for it, if a lamb or kid, four lambs or four kids, &c. whereas this law toucheth cattle only and the stealing of them, respect was herein had to that people, whose wealth consisted in the herd and the flock, but the stealing of anything else is meant also, whether by plain theft, or by oppression or deceit in dealing, for Zacchaeus being guilty in this kind promiseth restitution of four-fold without putting difference between beasts and other goods. But in saying that this law extendeth to all other stolen things also, I do not mean for the quantum to be restored; for the double only must be restored for things inanimate, as was before noted, and therefore the restitution of Zacchaeus was ex abundanti, not ex necessitate. Why for other things stolen only a twofold restitution is necessary the Hebrews yield some good reason, because other things may be kept more closely, but cattle must go abroad in the fields, being by this means more exposed to danger, and therefore it was needful by law to provide by a greater mulct to punish the stealing of them for greater terror. Whereas five-fold restitution must be made for the ox, but four-fold for the sheep, the reason might be, because the ox was a servant, and the chief amongst tame beasts, as the lion amongst the wild, whose labor his master used, and being stolen, he was not only damnified by the loss of his beast, but of his work also. And again, the stealing of an ox argued a more audacious thief, who durst not only steal a thing of less price, but a greater, and not only a thing that he might carry away upon his shoulder and hide, but that which must be driven, and could not so easily be hidden, verse. 4. If the beast stolen be alive, twofold restitution only is required, because the master may have his own again. If a wife stealeth, say the Rabbins, and she hath not to pay, the double worth shall lie upon her as a debt, till she be divorced, or her husband die, and then she shall pay it. A child that stealeth shall not be liable to pay when he is grown up, but be beaten, that he grow not into a custom: a servant shall be beaten for stealing, and that thoroughly, and when he goeth out free, he shall pay the double: for stealing none were put to death then.

If a thief be found breaking thorough, and be smitten that he die, no blood shall be shed for him: But if the sun be risen, blood shall be shed for him, &c. The reason of this is, because such thieves as break into houses, use to kill him that resisteth, and his breaking thorough is in effect a pursuing of the master of that house to kill him, wherefore if he killeth in his own defense he shall be guiltless. And by this Law, say the Hebrews, he shall be guiltless whosoever he be that killeth him, whether the master of the house, the servant, or any other man. Maimonides. Like unto this is the Law of the twelve Tables of the Romans, yet it is not so to be understood, as if the Law did bid a man to kill such a thief; for it were better to apprehend him, and to bring him before the Judges: but in case that a man by repelling and fighting against him did kill him, he should be guiltless, so Simlerus, who alledgeth the Civil Law also to the same effect, and affirming him not to be guiltless, that when he could have apprehended him, had rather kill him. And this is the Law for night-thieves. For thieves breaking by day, when the Sun is once up, they must not be killed, which is to be understood, unless they come armed with weapons: if he cometh simply to steal, and any man kill him, his blood shall pay for it. For the Sun risen, the Chaldee hath, If the eye of witnesses be upon him. If it be as clear as the Sun, saith Maimonides, that he cometh not to hurt thee, but to steal. For, there shall be blood shed for him, in Hebrew it is, bloods for him, as in the former verse, no bloods for him, but that is the meaning which hath been already said. He shall surely pay, some refer this to the slayer in the day, as if it had been said, he shall pay his life, but it is certainly spoken of the thief, and brought, as a reason, why he must not be killed, viz. because there is another punishment for him that only stealeth, and if he hath not wherewith to pay double, he must be sold. In the Laws of the twelve Tables it is expressed, that he who cometh to steal by night, or by day, being armed with a weapon in his hand, may be slain, if otherwise and he had not wherewith to pay for his theft, he must be made a servant to him from whom he stealeth; here he must be sold, that is, as the Rabbins explain it, by the Judges, and the price taken given to him that suffered loss. If the goods stolen be worth an hundred crowns, and the thief be worth but fifty, he shall be sold to make satisfaction, if the goods stolen be more then his price, he shall remain so much indebted, till the time of his freedom, and then when he is worth it, pay for it. But the thing stolen only shall be reckoned, not the quadruple, or quintuple restitution, when his selling cometh in question; for he shall not be sold for that, if he hath enough to pay the principal: but after he goeth out free and is able, he shall pay that also. Maimonides.

If it be demanded here, How the Laws of these times may be justified, in that men are hereby adjudged to die for theft, whereas in equity, and according to God's Laws, goods only should pay for goods, and so it seemeth to have been judged by the Law of Nature, since the Roman Laws are only for the same kind of punishment? Simlerus answereth well, that punishments may be aggravated, as the sins to be punished increase and grow more heinous; and therefore in following times upon this reason, it seemeth that Solomon said, that a thief being taken shall restore seven-fold; and David, He that hath stolen the poor man's lamb, shall surely die. By the Roman Laws of the twelve Tables, a servant convicted of theft must be beaten and thrown from a rock; and by the Law of Draco, a thief must die. Rulers, doubtless, have power for more heinous thefts to punish with death, for the greater terror to others, neither is death appointed by human Laws simply for theft. but for stealing the first time the punishment was whipping; for the second, the cutting off of the ear; and for the third, hanging: and in the Constitution of Frederick, where death is appointed for the punishment of theft, if but five shillings be stolen, it was in case that the public peace were broken, a • appeareth, because it is under the title, De pace violata. And so respect is, or should be had still to the quality of the offense, if stealing be with terror, or violence, or the thief be incorrigible, or the theft be the more heinous for the thing stolen, the thief is worthy of death.

If a man shall cause a field, or a vineyard to be eaten, &c. Here two cases only are put, but we must understand all other like cases, as if one feedeth or spoileth another man's meadow, or orchard, by feeding or treading down, &c. he must pay of the best of his own.

If a fire be kindled, and burn down stack • • f corn, or standing corn, he that kindled the fire, shall make restitution. By the Roman Laws, he is bound to restore only, that was the cause of the burning, Datâ operâ, or in lata, & incauta negligentia, or lascivia. But now it is death to set fire purposely upon any man's goods or house, out of malice, neither is the meaning of this Law to restrain from thus punishing in this case, but when the fire being kindled in another place cometh accidentally to another man's possession. The Hebrews distinguish about the things laid up at threshing places, saying, That instruments of hubandry, if they be burnt up there, shall be paid for; but not plate, garments, or household-stuff; but if a man's dwelling house be burnt, all within it shall be paid for, because that is a proper place for a man to lay his goods in. And if a man be hurt by burning, his healing shall be paid for, &c. as in the case of bodily hurts before spoken of.

If a man shall give his neighbor silver, or vessels to keep, and it be stolen, &c. Here is the Law, of which it was spoken before, that for other things besides living, if they were stolen, double restitution must be made: for if the thief be found, it is said here, that he shall pay double. If not, he to whose custody it was committed, must come before the Judges to be tried, whether he hath put his hand to his neighbors substance. Here the Judges are again set forth by the name of gods, as Exod. 21. 6. The Chaldee hath it, before God, his trial must be by oath, as verse. 11. whether he hath put his hand, that is; as say the Rabbins, not only to steal it, but to use it, and to serve himself therewith, for if he hath used it, and after that it be stolen, he shall pay for it. So Rab. Jos. Karro. The word translated substance, or goods, is work in Hebrew, because worldly goods are gotten but by labor.

Upon every difference about ox, asse, &c. Which another challengeth to be his, the matter shall come before the Judges, and he whom they condemn, shall pay the double. For these words, challengeth to be his, in Hebrew it is, for every lost thing which he shall say, this is he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the meaning is, when anything committed to another man's custody is stolen and lost, and he shall challenge his neighbor that kept it, saying, He is the man that stole it, the Judges shall judge it, and not only in this case, but in all other cases, when one man layeth theft to the charge of another, so Calvin, Simlerus, &c. The Rabbins say, that he who kept his neighbors goods for him, might justly be challenged when they were lost, not only if he had put his hand unto them, as was before said, but if he kept them in a place unmeet, as if he kept household-stuff or raiment in his yard, or out-house, where timber, and brick, and the like might be kept, but not these things; or if they being demanded, he should say, he knew not now where they were. For whom the Judges condemn, in Hebrew it is, whom the Judges make wicked, that is, judge to be the offender, as to justify is to pronounce just and innocent, Deut. 25. 1. Prov. 17. 15. The paying double is by Simlerus referred not only to him accused, but also to the accuser, because it is equal, that he who would bring another unjustly in danger of paying double, should have the same mulct laid upon himself, so likewise Calvin and Tremellius. The Rabbins note here, because it is said, He whom the Judges condemn, shall pay the double, that if a man confesseth against himself, he shall only pay the principal, but if denying it, they judge him guilty, he shall pay double.

Touching any kind of cattle committed to another man's keeping, if it were stolen, the keeper must restore, as he was not bound to do in the former case, and the reason is, because commonly for keeping a man's cattle a price is given, so as is not for keeping any dead thing. If it cometh to any hurt, whereby it dieth, the dead of torn carcase must be shown, and then he shall not pay for it. Here are two cases of losing cattle put, by theft, besides the losing of it by death. 1 If it be driven away, no man seeing it, that is, enemies coming and driving them away, which could not be prevented by any diligence of his, in this case, he taking his oath upon it, if his own cattle were also driven away withal especially he shall not pay. 2 If it be stolen, and then he shall pay. So Simlerus. But here seem to be three cases put rather. 1 Of a beast dying. 2 Of a beast hurt or torn with wild beasts. 3 Driven away, or stolen: and touching the first it is meant upon oath that he shall be acquitted; for the second, he shall bring the torn parts, or some part forth; and for the third, he shall pay, whether it be driven away by enemies, or stolen, for who can tell whether of these took it, when as no eye saw the driving thereof away? For a beast torn by wild beasts, the Rabbins say, that if only one wolf cometh, or only two dogs, the keeper is bound to rescue it, and if he doth not, he shall pay for it; but if two wolves, or more dogs come, then he shall be quit, or if a Lion, Bear, or Serpent. But if he leadeth the flock to places where wild beasts haunt, or robbers, he is bound to pay, or if other shepherds being near, he called not to them to help, or took not up staves when he might; or being one that taketh hire, if he provided not staves and help to rescue, he shall pay. So Maimonides.

If a man borrow ought of his neighbor, and it be hurt, or die, the owner not being by, he shall make it good, &c. Here are two cases put of borrowing without hire, and for hire; in the first if the thing borrowed miscarrieth, the borrower must make it good; in the second he shall not, but pay the hire only. Yet in the first it is excepted, if the lender be present, then the borrower shall not be bound to make it good, because, as Simlerus hath it, there could be no deceit or negligence through which it miscarried, the owner himself being by and seeing the usage thereof. For the borrower is by this Law appointed to pay, howsoever the thing borrowed be broken or lost, to prevent deceit, and to make him the more careful of the preservation of his neighbors goods; but when the owner is present, he is made a witness that there was no deceit, and therefore the borrower shall not pay. The Rabbins of the Jews expound it otherwise, If the owner be with it in the time of the borrowing, for if he be not, although he be present when it is broken or dieth, the borrower shall pay for it: but I prefer the former as more rational. For the manner of paying it was thus; they considered what the thing was worth, before it miscarried, and the worth of it being broken or dead, causing the borrower to restore that, and to make up what it wanted in worth. Yet there were some cases, say the Rabbins, wherein the borrower was not bound to pay, viz If any mischance came to the beast, whilst it was working, that is, in the plough, or he riding upon it, or treading out corn with it, or if a tool borrowed breaketh whilst a man worketh with it: but if the beast dieth before or after working, or be stolen or taken away by violence, or any other thing borrowed be lost, he shall pay. And for hurts, they say, If a beast borrowed be leaner by ill keeping, the borrower must satisfy for the loss of his flesh, but if by working, he shall not satisfy; and when anything is borrowed for such a time or work, the owner cannot fetch it home, till the work be done, or the time be expired, no not though the borrower be dead, but his heir may keep it, till the expiration of that term, if no certain time or work be set, he may fetch it home when he will.

If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. This law is again repeated, Deut. 22. 28, 29. but there it is said, He shall pay to her father 50 shekels of silver, and take her to wife, neither may he put her away all his days. Whereas in this place the dowry is to be given to her, if he marrieth her. Or in case her father will not give her him to wife, He shall pay money according to the dowry of Virgins, but to whom it is not set down. It is to be understood, that there shall be a double mulct imposed upon him, one to be paid to her, and another to her father, who hath been injured by his lying with her: so Simlerus; or else, as he also hath it, only one dowry is to be paid to the father, in whose power the daughter is. But Tremellius thus, besides the just dowry he shall pay to the father of the maid a mulct for his paternal authority, and his daughters chastity thus violated. Ainsworth saith, that the law in Deuteronomy differeth from this, because here is meant a maid lien with by her consent, but there without consent, and that the Hebrews teach, that if he married her, he was not tied to pay this money, but only to give her a writing for a dowry, as other maids had. And it was not only in her fathers power to deny her him, but also in her own to refuse him, and in his to deny to take her: so Maimonides in Naguarah, Chap 1. Sect. 3. But this I am sure is contrary to the Law of God, which saith, that he shall marry her, unless her father deny to give her, and pay this mulct also. But the difference between this and that in Deut. is observed by Tremellius also, because it is said, He taketh her and lieth with her, that is, being overcome with wine, or in wantonness, or by subtlety, she not being drawn to consent by promise of marriage or gifts. And this is the true reconciliation of these two places, here is a case of one lying with a maid, she being won to consent by fair promises and flatteries, for this he shall not pay anything to her father, but only give her a dowry, if he marrieth her, and if not, he shall pay money to her for a dowry, that another man may be the more willing to take her to wife: in Deut. is the case of a maid deflowered without such consent; and in this, he shall both marry her, and endow her, and pay 50 shekels for a mulct unto her father, and never put her away again. If it be demanded, what if he were a married man that lay with her, or a kinsman [Quest.] within the degrees prohibited? I answer, if she were his kinswoman, he must die for it, because this is the punishment of incest • if not, although he had a wife before, he must either take her to wife also, or pay money to her for a dowry, as Simlerus thinketh, or else as an adulterer he must die for it. But I cannot find, that any man's lying with a woman, unless she were married or espoused, was to be punished with death. Wherefore it is to be held rather, that he should pay money to her for a dowry. If any shall marvel, that no punishment is set down for the maid, Simlerus saith, that this was an indulgence to her sex and young age and simplicity, and a pecuniary mulct could not be imposed upon her, because she had nothing, and for her father to be urged to pay for her fault were unjust. But the true reason, as I take it, was because she was punished with shame and disgrace, being henceforth vilely accounted of, as an whore, and her marriage was spoiled hereby. If it be demanded, why Judah would have had his daughter in law Tamar burnt for the like, she being a Widow, and so as a maid? For this see the solution, [Quest.] Gen. 38. 21, &c. But why is this penalty inflicted upon the man, or he required to marry her? Answ. The Lord would have them married, that [Quest.] a daughter of Israel might not live longer in infamy and sin, as an whore. But why was so little a punishment inflicted for so foul a sin, and none upon [Quest.] the maid? Answ. In these civil punishments respect was only had to the staying of the inundation of vice, and if it be well considered, this was a sore punishment: but this is not all the punishment of this sin, but both for the whoremaster and the whore shutting out of the Kingdom of heaven, Gal. 5. 19. 1 Cor. 5. 11. If it be demanded, whether this law should not be still [Quest.] observed in all places? It is answered, that to punish fornication is moral, but for the kind of punishment it is political, and therefore at the liberty of the Magistrate to set down the fittest punishment for each Nation to make them amend their manners. Amongst the Romans by the Julian law the Stupratour was punished with the loss of half his goods, if he were wealthy, if not, his body was punished, and he was banished. The punishment of whoredom should not be less but greater now, as sin doth more abound, see before upon Gen. 38. 21.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. The word witch is of the feminine gender, because the female is most commonly infected with this vice, but the manwith or sorcerer is also implied, see Deut. 18. 10. where not only a witch is named, but also a diviner, an observer of times, and an enchanter, a charmer, a consulter with familiar spirits, and Necromancer: and Levite. 20. 6. God threateneth to cut off those that go after Wizards, and such as have familiar spirits. Of the divers sorts of such as used these wicked arts, I have spoken before, Exod▪ 7. 11. This, saith Simlerus, against witches doth fitly follow after the law against enticing to incontinency, because this art is often used to stir up unlawful loves, and hereby the soul fornicateth with the Devil. For charmers and charms much is said by some, as if such were not worthy of death, but might be tolerated, because what they do is effected by the force of certain words, and not by any compact with the Devil, but God doth not only condemn witches but charmers also. And good reason, because the name of God and other names of holy Scripture and words are abused by them against the laws of the first table, which kind of sin is most heinous and therefore to be punished with death.

Whosoever lieth with a beast shall be put to death. This, saith Simlerus, is set between the law against witches and against idolaters, because they that have yielded to so foul a sin as to fornicate with the Devil by witchcraft and sorcery, may easily be drawn to this most filthy sin by the Devil also, and idolaters are given over in God's just judgment to do things against nature. This sin is so foul, that it should not be once named amongst Christians, yet that there was need of a law against it appeareth; because the Canaanites were before tainted with it, and there be some chief men in the Church of Rome that by their writings have given allowance to it, as Casa, Aretinus, Bembus, and others: so Simlerus. Levite. 20. 15, 16. when such a foul sin is committed, the beast is also to be put to death, and if a woman committeth such wickedness with a beast, and in appointing the beast to be killed, which was innocent, the Lord showeth how detestable this sin is before him.

He that sacrificeth to other gods shall be put to death. The word in Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , shall be utterly destroyed, or anathematized, or destroyed as execrable, or destroyed without mercy, Heb. 10. 28. in the Targum Hierosol. He shall be killed with the sword, and his goods consumed: but this is thus enlarged out of Deut. 13. 15, 16. the death in particular, to which such were to be put, was stoning, Deut. 17. 5. But the Hebrew Canons here distinguish, saying, That he, who serveth idols willingly and presumptuously, shall be cut off without mercy; but if ignorantly, he is to bring the sin-offering appointed for a sin of ignorance, Numb. 15. 27, 30. whereas sacrificing to other gods is only spoken of here, serving of them is also named, Deut. 13. Deut. 17. and worshipping them, and the Sun, Moon and Stars are named in particular, as the gods which the Heathen served; to show, that not only sacrificing, but giving any kind of worship and service to them is death.

Thou shalt neither vex nor oppress a stranger, &c. The first of these words is referred by the Hebrews to contumelious words: the second to deeds, thou shalt neither vex him by ill and disgraceful speeches, nor oppress him by hard dealing with him any kind of way. This law is given against that evil inclination, which is commonly in men towards strangers, preferring themselves and their own Nation, and debasing and abusing them. For our love must be as our heavenly Fathers to all, yea even to strangers, Deut. 10. 18, 19. Levite. 19. 33, 34. Zach. 7. 10. Jer. 22. 3. Ezech. 46. 18. and in love as a brother, so a stranger must be relieved in his want, and this law is repeated again, Chap. 23. 9.

Ye shall not afflict a Widow or fatherless child, for if ye do, and they cry to me, &c. These are placed next unto the stranger, because most subject also to injuries for their inability to defend themselves, and of such God professeth to be a special Patron. Here is no particular punishment set down, but it is to be understood, that the Judge should do in their behalf, as the case should require, and God threateneth to kill such oppressors with the sword, and so to make their wives widows, and their children fatherless.

If thou lendest money to any of my people that is poor amongst you, thou shalt not be to him as an Usurer, neither shalt thou lay usury upon him. For these words, Thou shalt not be as an Usurer to him: Ainsworth hath it, Thou shalt not be as an exacting Creditor; the Septuagint, Thou shalt not be urgent upon him: the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nesheh, is put for one that is urgent to have his own paid him again of him that is not able, or to have a pawn for it, 2 King. 4. 1. Psal. 109. 11. Nehem. 5. 7, 10, 11. Deut. 24. 10. For to the poor, that is not able to pay, it is at the seventh year to be released, and he, say the Rabbins, that is urgent at any time upon a poor man, who hath not wherewithal to pay, sinneth against this law. Maimonides. Yet a difference is put elsewhere between a brother and a stranger, as Deut. 23. 20. but in case the stranger be poor, he must not be lent unto upon usury, neither, Levite. 25. 35, 36. as some, understand it, & as reason showeth, because he must be relieved, as a brother in his want. This precept touching the lending of money is further enlarged, Levite, 25. 36, 37. Thou shalt not give him thy meat to usury. Deut. 23. 19. nor anything that is put to usury, & to the poor lend we must, Deut. 15. 8. Luk. 6. 35. The word translated Usury is biting, because it biteth and consumeth a man that borroweth in respect of his substance, Levite. 25. 37, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 increase or multiplication, whereupon the Rabbins gather, that all increase taken is usury, and because Deut. 23. 19. it is said, Thou shalt not cause thy brother to lend: they hold, that it is unlawful to borrow upon usury, from these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so translated by them, affirming, that they had this doctrine by tradition, that this was an admonition to the borrower. And they hold, that he also is guilty of this sin who hath anything to do about it as a witness, a surety, a scribe, or a procurer, because it is here said. Ye shall not lay usury upon him: for this extendeth to all before spoken of. They distinguish also between usuries, when a man doth not plainly agree to lend for increase, but hath a gift sent him before the borrower cometh to borrow, or after he hath paid him in his money; for that before, they say, is usury afore-hand, this after, after-usury. A man may not make any benefit of his lending, either by dwelling in the borrowers Court-yard for naught, or by hiring in that time anything of him for less then it is worth, or by retaining his servant to work for him, although he hath nothing to do at home, nor by learning of him to read, if he did not use to do so before, no neither must the borrower so much as speak to him first in salutation, unless he used so to do before, and this they ground upon these words, Usury of anything that is put to usury, Deut. 23. 19. which extendeth even to words. If usury be taken, the Judges must see it restored back again to the borrower, neither shall a bill made for the payment of usury be of any force. Hitherto Maimonides, who further saith, that he, which was any way guilty of usury by lending or borrowing, denied the name of the God of Israel, and that he brought them out of Egypt, hecause this is added as a reason to this law, I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of Egypt, Levite. 25. 38. But in censuring the poor borrower thus, the Rabbins were certainly in an error because he borroweth not upon usury, but being urged by necessity, not doing, but suffering wrong; and it is a true maxim, not he that suffereth, but he that doth wrong sinneth. If that Jer. 15. 10. be urged, I neither lent nor borrowed upon usury: it is to be known, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there used signifieth only to lend, and it is so rendered by Junius, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to lend upon usury, so that this place is commonly mistaken, nothing else being meant, but that he had no dealings with the people to deserve it, and yet they cursed him. Indeed, if a man borroweth upon usury, not being forced by necessity, he is accessory to the same sin, and so guilty of it. For that which the Rabbins say, that all increase taken for lending is usury, it is qualified by some, saying, That all increase ex pacto is usury; but if otherwise in way of gratitude, because a man gaineth by my money which I lent him, he will give me anything, it is lawful for me to take it: others hold that increase only to be unlawful usury which is taken of the poor, but not of others in way of Commerce, so that a due proportion be not exceeded: and therefore they define usury to be either a lending to the poor for increase or to any neighbor to his damage. The ground of the first definition of usury, a pact intervening, is in these words, Thou shalt not lay usury upon him, that is, saith Junius, by way of compact or contract. But Tostatus with the Rabbins saith, any taking of increase is usury. And a man may lay usury upon another, although he compacteth not, but only expecteth, or else he will lend no more, and the biting to the borrower is not in the pact, but in the quantum that he must pay, or else he cannot borrow another time. For the other definition, it is grounded partly upon the expression here made, If thou l •• dest money to thy brother that is poor, and partly upon common equity, seeing in the dealing and trading of men one with another, if nothing be done in buying or selling, letting or hiring, to the damage of another, no law of charity is broken, at which the whole Decalogue aimeth, and so no sin is committed. But to the poor to lend for any increase is cruelty, they being not holpen, but more impoverished hereby, whereas God by this law doubtless specially provideth for their help and comfort. I will not stand to dispute the question, whether of these definitions is rather to be embraced, or to put cases, wherein gain may be taken or not, or to determine of the quantum, for all these have been copiously performed by others. Only I wish all men to be charitable and conscionable, and not to think that the not intervening of a pact will be available before God to clear them from sin, that securely under this shelter practice the odious sin of usury. If any shall think, because this law is placed amongst the judicials of the Jews, that we are not bound hereby anymore, then by other civil laws of theirs, he must remember, that this is as a Judaical, so a Christian law, Luk 6. 35. Lend freely, looking for nothing again, that is, not according to Syrus, not putting the poor out of hope to borrow; because the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor, as Beza, not looking for the principal again, but not looking for any recompense, as when any rich man lendeth to another, the borrower lendeth to him again another time, and the lender looketh for this requital; and now the difference of stranger, Deut. 23. 20. is taken away in Christ, in whom we are all brethren, and therefore this rule is to be followed towards all. But by strangers, to whom they might lend upon usury, are not understood all that were not of the seed of Israel, because some of them being poor must be relieved, as was shown before; viz. such as sojourned amongst them and were circumcised, not being of the Nations appointed to destruction; to the people of those Nations then they might lend upon usury to waste and to weaken them, yet Aquinas saith, that this was but a permission to take even of them, that they might be the more willing to lend freely to their brethren.

If thou takest thy neighbors raiment to pledge, thou shalt return it to him before the Sun goeth down. For that only is his covering, &c. This law is further enlarged, Deut. 24. 12. If thou lendest anything to thy neighbor, go not in to fetch out his pledge, but stand without, and if he be poor, sleep not with his pledge, &c. Verse 17. Thou shalt not take for a pledge the garment of the widow. Verse 6. Thou shalt not take the upper or the nether millstone to pledge. A poor man's garment is that wherewith alone he clotheth himself in the day, and covereth himself when he lieth down to sleep by night, and such is the garment of the widow that must not be taken. By the upper and nether millstone are to be understood all tools, wherewith a man doth work to get his living, so that being deprived of them, he is in effect deprived of his life. In the Hebrew Canons it is said, that the meaning is, the thing taken for pledge from a poor man must be restored to him when he needeth it, if it be any garment which he needeth to wear by day, or any tool wherewith he worketh, it must be restored by day, even whensoever he needeth it, for which it is said, Thou shalt return it to him before ehe Sun goeth down, but if to cover him at night, it must then be restored, for which it is said, Thou shalt restore it at the Sun going down, Deut. 24. 13. If it be demanded, what benefit it is to a Creditor to take his [Quest.] neighbors garment or tool to pledge, and by and by to restore it again? Simlerus answereth well, By the poor man's bringing of it to him thus from day today, haply his day-garment at night, and his night-covering in the morning, when he fetched the other away again, it was bound over unto him, and this bringing and fetching might put the poor man in mind to work the harder, that he might have wherewithal to pay his Creditor; and whereas the thing taken for pledge was the worse for using, at which the Creditor might except, he must know, that God in making this law tied him to exercise his charity, which if he should refuse to do, he threateneth him, but if he did, he promiseth a recompense, Deut. 24. 13. If it be demanded, why the Creditor is forbidden to go into the poor man's house and [Quest.] to take a pledge? Calvin resolveth it well, Rich men are so covetous, that they would have chosen for the best, and not have been content with that which the poor man would have given, and so have put the poor to more loss and ignominy.

Thou shalt not revile the Judges, nor curse the Ruler, &c. The word rendered Judges is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gods, but of God it is not here meant, because it is elsewhere provided against blaspheming of God, neither of false gods, as Josephus would have it, for they may freely be reviled, but of Judges, to revile whom is a sin, because for their place and authority they must be reverenced, as Fathers of the Country. These two words, revile and curse, are rendered by one word, curse by Santes, but the first being Calal, signifieth properly to levifie, or to use disgraceful speeches, whereby the dignity of the Judge is levified, the other, Taor, to curse. By the Ruler the Rabbins understand either the King or the Chief of the great Synedrion. In that no punishment is set down, it is to be understood, that it was left to the discretion of the Magistrate himself to punish such indignities offered unto him.

Thy full ripe fruit and thy liquor thou shalt not delay. For liquor in Hebrew is tear, because it is the liquor of the grapes, when they are full ripe, so that being pressed it runneth down like tears. The Chaldee rendereth the first words, thy first fruits, the Septuagint, the first fruits of thy floor; and that the first fruits are meant, see Chap. 23. 19. see Numb. 18. 27. Deut. 26. 2. for the manner of bringing the first fruits, Numb. 15. 20. and Deut 26. Some by fullness, saith Simlerm, understand the first fruits of a plentiful year, and by tears of a barren year, a few drops like tears being then to be offered. But the first fruits of dry things and of liquid, as wine and oil are meant hereby. There were seven sorts of fruits, say the Hebrew Canons, of which they were to bring the first ripe, viz. of Wheat, Barley, Grapes, Figs, Olives, Pomegranates and Dates, and not of any other; of liquors only two, Wine and Oil: this also they ground upon Deut. 8. 8. where these seven are named as the chief fruits of that land. The quantity is not set down, but by the Rabbins it is taught that one of 60 must be brought at the least, and one of 40 at the most, for they say, what did the wise men set? a good eye, one of forty, a mean eye, one of fifty, an evil eye, one of sixty, so that they counted the firsts to be then bountifully paid, when one of 40, but most niggardly, when one of 60, between these indifferent. They must not delay, but bring these in due time. For they being for part of the Priests maintenance, God knew what slackness would be in the people to pay them. Hereby God would have them acknowledge, that all their increase came from him, and that they had their land from God, Deut. 26. 9. this being brought as a tribute unto him therefore, and hereby all their increase was sanctified, Rom. 11. 16. And the faithful, the first fruits of his creatures are figured out hereby, Jam. 1. 18. Revel. 14. 4. and such was Israel sometime called, Jerem 2. 3. and hereby was figured out, saith Isidore, how the first and chief of our actions should be dedicated to God, or the will, which is first before any action.

The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give to me, and of thy sheep and oxen seven days, &c. Of the Law for all first-born things, see before, Exod. 13. 2.

Ye shall be an holy people to me, flesh torn in the field ye shall not eat, &c. To figure out the inward holiness that should be in us, outward purity is commanded to the Israelites about meats and other things, see Levite. 17. 15. Deut. 24. 21. By torn flesh the Rabbins understand either a beast or a fowl torn by wild beasts, lions, wolves, &c. Or by birds of prey, as the Eagle, Kite, &c. If any part of it be torn, although it be recovered and killed by a man before it dieth, yet because it was inclining to death and could not have lived, it is unlawful, say they, to eat of it. And that not only in the case of being torn by other creature, but of being broken by falling from an high place, being shot with an arrow to the heart, or stricken with the hand of God. And it is likewise unlawful to eat flesh cut from a creature living: so Maimonides. In the laws before pointed to, as torn flesh, so a dead carcase is forbidden to be eaten, and as here they are commanded to cast torn flesh to the dogs, so Deut. 14 21. it must be given or sold to a stranger, and if any of them did eat thereof, he must wash his garments and be unclean till the evening; which if he did not he should bear his iniquity, and this is pronounced as well of the stranger as of the Isrralite. Here is occasion offered of divers queries: as 1 Why such flesh is forbidden? Answ. Not simply, because the blood was [Quest. 1] in it which might not be eaten; for this, as Calvin well noteth, is a diverse law from that, because the punishment of blood-eating is death, but the punishment of this, to wash, &c. but torn or dead flesh so found might not be eaten; because it was to be numbered amongst unclean meats, and they being an holy people might not eat any unclean thing. The wild beasts tearing and killing of it, who is unclean, is enough to make it unclean. And by avoiding it God would teach them to avoid cruelty, wherein he that ate of a beast torn by cruel beasts, did as it were communicate with them. Moreover, by wild beasts tearing other creatures, the Devils tearing our bodies by wicked lusts are set forth upon the sensual delights suggested, by whom we must not feed. 2 How that people is said to be holy? Answ. Because [Quest. 2] separated from the rest of the would, and God did more specially dwell amongst them, and to them were the Word and holy Sacraments committed; and therefore it was necessary that there should be some outward signs of their separated condition, and some obedience in certain Rites by God prescribed merely for the good will and pleasure of God, although man could not see into any reason of such Ordinances, that yet by obeying herein, they might appear to be the people of God.

3 How do these precepts agree, when as one biddeth cast it to the dogs, [Quest. 3] but the other to give or sell it to the stranger? Answ. If they did not cast it to the dogs, they might so do, because to others it was permitted indifferently to eat of all meats, and the restraint was only of the Jews. 4 But the stranger is also named, as the Jew, so he must refrein from such meat? Ans. [Quest. 4] Strangers were of two sorts, some such as joined themselves in Religion to the Jews being circumcised, for these there was all one law: others did not join, and to them it might be given to eat. Mystically, we must not imitate the carnal conversation of those that by vile lusts are torn by Devils, such a conversation being as torn flesh and the Devils, as the wild beasts. And those that live so, must be cast to the dogs, that is, be counted as an Ethnic or Pagan, who are as dogs: so Rabanus.

CHAP. XXIII.

THou shalt not take up a vain report, put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. The word, take up, may be expounded either of being the author or raiser of an ill rumour against a man's neighbor, or of giving an ear unto it, and both these ways it is understood by the Chaldee, and Septuagint, and vulgar Latin, and Rab. Solomon: see Levite. 19. 16. 1 Sam. 24. 9. and good reason, that as the raising of a rumour, so the receiving of it should be avoided, because vain rumors would soon vanish, unless they were sustained and strengthened by vain credulity.

For, put not thy hand, the Septuagint hath, consent not, for, a witness of unrighteousness, Hebrew, a witness of cruel wrongs. This law, as saith Simlerus, is specially concerning things coming into judgment, as generally the receiving of false rumors is to be avoided by all men, so specially by a Judge, and if in no case a man may receive false rumors, then in judgment he should much more abhor to testify falsely. If any did so, the same punishment which should have been laid upon the accused, shall be laid upon him, Deut. 19. 16, 19, 20.

Thou shalt not be after many to evil, neither shalt thou answer in a cause to decline after many to pervert judgment. In the Hebrew it is, to pervert; but by the Septuagint judgment is added, and expressed, verse. 6. Tremellius, Insist not in the steps of the mightier to evil, because this is opposed to the poor spoken of, verse. 3. The Hebrews expound it well of Judges divided, when the most or greatest are for a wrong sentence, yet thou art a Judge fearing God, must not give with them. It may also be understood of those that contend, whereof some are said to be many, because they come accompanied with many friends and attendants, by reason of their greatness, thus striking terror into the Judge, or moving him in hope of favor and benefit from them to give an unjust sentence, for from their great and high reckoning wherein they were, the Rabbins had their name from Rabbim, many. So Simlerus. And thus this verse and the next seem to be explained, Deut. 1. 17.

And a poor man shalt thou not honor in his controversy, The like phrase is used of the rich, Levite. 19. 15. Oft-times, saith the Comedian, the Judges either take from the rich through envy, or add unto the poor through mercy. And it is an honoring of either of them more then of God, when as for either of their sakes justice is perverted, as Eli is said to have honored his sons more then God. And therefore even the Judge, that to get the credit of pity to the poor, shall give unjustly on his side, is judged as a contemner of God for this his vain glory.

When thou meetest thine enemies ox or asse going astray, thou shalt turn him unto him. Thou shalt not see his asse lying under his burden, &c. This Law is again delivered, Deut. 22. 1, 2, 3, &c. and is extended to all lost things, which must be restored. If the owner be not known, he that found it, say the Rabbins, was bound to cry it, and he must keep it by him, till the owner cometh for it, or if he be far off. So that the love of enemies and doing good even to them is no new precept, Matth. 5. but an old one, Levite. 19. 17. and therefore no work of supererogation is done hereby. In the case of a beast fallen down which is an enemies, if thou wouldest through that enmity which is in thee leave him, thou must not but help him up, as the words in Hebrew. imply. Now these offices of love were not so much to the beast, but the man in helping his beast, for the reconciliation of affections so much distracted before.

Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the poor. Before it is commanded, Thou shalt not honor the poor in his cause. Here contrariwise against another evil, viz. of contempt, and not enduring to hear and consider fully of the cause of a very poor person, it is provided that by such means, or by inclining to the rich, his cause be not perverted. By the poor are meant especially the widow, the fatherless, and the stranger, whose cause who so wresteth is accursed, Deut. 27. 19.

From a word of falsehood thou shalt be far, and slay not the just and innocent, for I will not justify the wicked. By word of falsehood understand a false judgment; if a Fellow-Judge through corruption would give a false judgment, thou must not consent unto him. Wherefore Maimonides saith, that a good Judge would not sit in judgment, unless he knew first who should sit with him, and that he was upright: when a false judgment is given, the just is slain, if it be a matter of life and death, and if of goods, he is impoverished and grieved, which also tendeth to death. So Simlerus. God will not justify the wicked, that is, he will not suffer such a wicked Judge to go unpunished.

Thou shalt not take a gift, for a gift blindeth the seeing, and perverteth the words of the just. A gift must not be taken, no not to acquit the innocent, or to condemn the guilty, for it is a general rule, Cursed is he that taketh a gift, and he must restore it again, and his judgment is frustrate: so the Rabbins. And our wise men have taught, say they, that if any giveth a bribe for the office of a Judge, he is to be despised and naught set by, and it is unlawful to stand to be judged by him. See the same Law, Deut. 16. 19. The Chaldee rendereth it, Blind the eyes of the wise, as in that place, the Septuagint, the eyes of the seeing; in Hebrew it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , open-eyed. Against bribes see more, Prov. 15. 27. Job 15. 34. Eccles. 7. 7. Prov. 17. 8. 19. 6. 17. 23. Esa. 1. 23. The bribe-taker is wicked, and the companion of thieves. But how can the words of the just be perverted, if he be just, he will not speak unjustly? [Quest.] Answ. They that would otherwise have been just, are hereby perverted. The force of bribes is wonderful, as Cicero showeth in Verres and in Clodius. Philip the King of Macedon by gifts wan many factious men unto him in every City, by whose means the liberty of Greece was betrayed unto him. Amphiaraus by his wife was betrayed, she being corrupted by a most fair jewel to hang about her neck: Danae a virgin was corrupted in her chastity with gold; and Procris, a matron. And daily experience showeth, how much even small gifts do work for the moving of the affection, and therefore all Judges and Magistrates ought to beware especially, that they receive none at the hands of those that contend before them.

Ye shall not oppress a stranger, &c. This is added the second time, for it is once, chap. 22. 21. because the precepts here are directed to Judges especially. And the Jews had need to have this Law often inculcated unto them, because as they were hated of all other Nations, so they hated them, and what their contempt of men of other Nations is, appeareth at this day, because being in so abject an estate, they despise all men in comparison of themselves.

Six years thou shalt sow thy land, and gather the fruits thereof; but the seventh thou shalt let it rest, &c. This Law is more largely set forth, Levite. 25. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. and verse. 20, 21. This was to be observed only in Canaan, and in acknowledgement that the land was the Lord's, as they rested upon the seventh day in acknowledgement, that they were the Lord's. Now they might neither sow nor reap, prune their trees, nor gather their vintage, unto which the Rabbins add, that they might not plow, nor dung their ground, nor gather out stones, nor plant, nor graff, nor cut off the withered branches, nor make a smoke to kill worms upon them, nor burn the straw upon the ground, because it was fit for the beasts to eat. And the owners with others must enjoy all the increase in common, none must gather to sell, unless it were a little to buy other meat with it, no man might lock up his vineyard, or fence in his corn-field, and of the things that grew that year, no medicine might be made, but only it might be eaten, because it is said, It shall be for meat unto you, Levite. 25. 5. Thus Maimonides. And if they should doubt how they should live, if they did no acts of husbandry that year, the Lord answereth, Levite. 25. 20, 21. he would send upon the sixth year fruits enough for three years, as before upon the sixth day he gave Manna enough for two days. In appointing this years rest, God aimed at their spiritual good, for the Law must then be read in the ears of them all, Deut. 31. 10. and if they should transgress against this Law, he threateneth desolation to the land, Levite. 26. 34, 35. 2 Chron. 36. 21. For the beginning of their account to this Sabbatical year, it must needs be from the first year of their entrance into Canaan, and so our Savior Christ's passion will fall out in the seventieth Jubilee, the Antitype being thus aptly shown by the Type. So Willet, who also saith, that as upon the seventh day man was to rest from labor, which sin brought upon him: so in the seventh year the earth must rest, for the curse brought by the sin of man upon it. Whereas it is said, they might not reap, Levite. 25. 5. it is meant, as Brenz noteth, that they might not reap each man his field alone, but in common with others. Augustine inquiring, what the poor should have to eat the seventh year, if no corn were sown, answereth, that reaping is forbidden, but not sowing. And Tostatus thinketh, that they might gather the fruit in their enclosed grounds, but both plainly contrary to the Text. Another rite of this year was, debts were to be released to their brethren, Deut. 15. 2. but this Brenz thinketh is not meant of altogether forgiving them, but not requiring them that year, but staying till the next, because this wre unjust for a man to lose his money. To whom I can by no means assent, because the borrower is a poor man, and the rich must be willing to lose in charity for the benefit of the poor, and we are all under God, neither are our goods our own; but at his dispose, if he will take from one and give to another by his Ordinance. Yet Calvin is for that Exposition also, because there followeth an Item to the Creditor not to forecast, that the year of release was near; for if it were then altogether to be remitted, there needed not a contract, as between lender and borrower, but altogether to give it. But whoso shall look into the Text, shall find that this lending is also called giving, and Calvin himself rendereth it, to a beggar, the right object of charity. And to show that debts were now altogether released, the release is appointed to be made at the end of the year, Deut. 15. 1. This Sabbatical year men were not commanded to rest, but the land only, and by consequence their rest was only from works of husbandry. For the mystery of this year, as in six years they sowed, but not the seventh, so in this world we must sow by good works, but in the end, when the time of rest in Heaven cometh, we shall reap without sowing, and we shall then enjoy all things incommon, the poor and the servant, as well as the rich and the free. So Rabanus.

Six days thou shalt labor, but in the seventh thou shalt rest &c. This before enacted is here again added, lest they should think that the seventh year being all a Sabbath, they were not bound that year to keep the Sabbath-day, And the Law of the Sabbath-day is put amongst the Civil Laws, because there was also a civil end herein, viz. the rest of servants and beasts from labor, and consequently their preservation, who if they were continually toiled without intermission, could not subsist.

And in all things that I have said unto you, be circumspect, and make no mention of the names of other gods. Here the Lord reflecteth upon occasion of the mention made of the Sabbath, upon the whole Decalogue, and specially upon that of not having any other gods. Make no mention of their names. In Vulgar Latin, Swear not by their names: The Hebrew Canons say, Whoso shall make a vow unto, or swear by the name of an Idol, shall be beaten, whether he sweareth by it for himself, or for an Infidel, and an Infidel must not be made to swear by, or to mention the name of his god. But even to speak of them, or to name them as gods with honor, is forbidden; and so David showeth that he understood this Psal. 16. 4. I will not take up their names into my lips. And Jos. 23. 8. Neither make mention of them, nor swear by them, &c. And accordingly, Hos. 2. 17. God saith, he will take the names of Baalim out of their mouths. And Zach. 13. 2. that he will cut off the names of Idols. Thus S. Paul biddeth, that fornication should not be once named amongst Christians, that is, be so out of use, as that the very name of it might vanish, and no sound thereof remain.

Three times shalt thou keep a feast unto me in the year, the feast of unleavened bread, &c. None shall appear before me empty, the feast of first-fruits, and the feast of in-gathering at the end of the year. Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the Lord. For three times, Hebr. it is three feet, because they were to travel on foot to the keeping of these feasts. Of the feast of the Passover I have spoken at large, Exod. 12. But for this addition, None shall appear before me empty: what is meant by it, see Deut. 16. 16, 17. Everyone shall give as he is able, and that not only at the first feast of unleavened bread, but at each other feast, every particular male must bring his offering, verse. 10. this is said to be a tribute of a free-will-offering, which he must give, and in the spending of which he must rejoice, and together with him his man-servant, his maid, his son and daughter, the Levite and stranger, the fatherless and widow: for with this offering a feast was to be kept. The Rabbins note, that everyone at each of these feasts must do three things. 1 Appear upon the first day, bringing with him a burnt-offering of fowl, or of beast, because it is both commanded, and to appear empty is forbidden. 2 He must feast, that is, with peace-offerings, which were not, but of beasts. 3 He must rejoice, that is, offer peace-offerings, more then those of the feast, which are called the peace-offerings of the rejoicing of the feast, Maimonides in Cagigah, Chap. 1. For the further clearing of this place, divers questions are to be resolved.

1 In what place they must appear? Answ. This is not expressed, but understood, before the Ark of the Covenant, where because the Lord did [Quest. 1] show signs of his Presence, and give answers, he was said to be. And Deut. 16. 2. In the place which the Lord should choose, and not in any other place, verse. 5, &c.

2 Why must they come all to one place? Answ. Both to maintain unity and love amongst themselves, and unity in Religion; and by this solemn [Quest. 2] meeting to be stirred up to the more reverence towards God; and mystically, one Christ was set forth by this one place, to whom we must all come, that upon him our Altar we may offer acceptable sacrifices, and through the mediation of him our only High Priest. P. Martyr yieldeth besides these three other Reasons. 1 That they might be the better instructed in God's worship. 2 That their prayers made together might be the more effectual. 3 For the exercise of their obedience in going so far. And for three times in a year, he saith, it was to remember the better three great benefits wherein the happiness of a State Politick consisteth. 1 Liberty. 2 To have laws of their own. 3 A supply of food and other necessaries for the body. To remember, the 1 was the Passover instituted. The 2 the Feast of Pentecost, at what time the Law was given. For the 3 the Feast of Tabernacles.

3 Why must the males appear and not the females also? Answ. None [Quest. 3] were prohibited, but women, because of their infirmities, sometime being hindered by child-bearing, sometime by giving suck, were not so straitly required to appear, yet that they did, we may see in the example of