╨╧рб▒с>■  B D ■   - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ье┴#` Ё┐bёbjbj\.\. 4Є>D>De╠      дддддддд╕|5|5|5|5Р8,╕D@Ў╚=╚=╚=╚=╚=г>г>г>▀>с>с>с>с>с>с>$:AhвCВ?∙дг>г>г>г>г>?дд╚=╚=█■?├>├>├>г>д╚=д╚=▀>├>г>▀>├>├>дд├>╚=╝= pq0wP+╟|5│>├>▀>@0D@├>$D├>$D├>$Dд├>г>г>├>г>г>г>г>г>??├>г>г>г>D@г>г>г>г>╕╕╕─1|5╕╕╕|5╕╕╕дддддд     COMMENTARIES THE FOUR LAST BOOKS OF MOSES ARRANGED IK THE FORM OF A HARMONY VOL. Ill THE CALVIN TRANSLATION SOCIETY, INSTITUTED IN MAT M.DCCC.XLIII. FOE THE PUBLICATION OP TEANSLATIONS OF THE WOEKS OF JOHN CALVIN. COMMENTARIES THE FOUR LAST BOOKS OF MOSES ARRANGED IN THE FORM OF A HARMONY BY JOHN CAIYIN TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, AND COMPARED WITH THE FRENCH EDITION ; WITH ANNOTATIONS, ETC. BY THE REV. CHARLES WILLIAM BINGHAM, M.A. RECTOR OP MELCOMBE-HOR8ET, DORSET, AND FORMERLY FELLOW OP NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD VOLUME THIRD urn urn BAKER BOOK HOUSE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516 Calvin's Commentaries 22-Volume Set ISBN: 0-8010-2440-4 Originally printed for the Calvin Translation Society Edinburgh, Scotland Reprinted 1993 by Baker Book House Company P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 Printed in the United States of America THE FOUR LAST BOOKS OF MOSES ARRANGED IN THE FOKM OF A HARMONY, WITH COMMENTARIES. THE SECOND TABLE OF THE LAW: THE FIRST COMMANDMENT OF WHICH IS THE FIFTH OF THE LAW. Cf)e jftftj) Cmrnnattimtent. EXODUS, CHAPTER XX. 12. Honour thy father and thy 12. Honora patrem tuum et ma-mother ; that thy days may be long trem tuam, ut prorogentur dies upon the land which the Lord thy tui super terrain quam Jehova Deus God giveth thee. tuus dat tibi. ITS REPETITION FROM DEUTERONOMY V. 16. Honour thy father and thy 16. Honora patrem tuum et ma-mother, as the Lord thy God hath trem tuam, quemadmodum prsecepit commanded thee; that thy days may tibi Jehova, Deus tuus: ut proro-be prolonged, and that it may go gentur dies tui et ut bene sit tibi well with thee, in the land which super terrain quam Jehova Deus the Lord thy God giveth thee. tuus dat tibi. I am not ignorant that the Tables of the Law are usually divided in a different manner j1 for those, who make only one of the first two Commandments, are obliged finally to mangle 1 See Becon's Catechism, part iii., (Parker Society's edition,) p. 60, et seq. See also Bullinger's Decades, (Parker Society,) vol. i. p. 212; and Hooper's Early Writings, (Parker Society,) pages 349-351; and Calvin's Institutes, lib. ii. cap. 8, з 12. It appears that this error may be traced to Augustine, (Quaest. in Exod. 71, and Ep. ad. Jan. 119,) who, without omitting the Second Commandment, divided the precepts of the First Table into three, on the supposition that their number was allusive to the Trinity. He, however, contradicts himself elsewhere, (Qusest. Vet. et Novi Test., lib. i. 7;) but Peter Lomb._ adopts his erroneous division, and separates the Tenth Commandment into two parts. (Lib. iii., Distinct. 37 and 40.) 6 calvin's harmony of the four exod. xx. 12. the last. Thus the prohibition of God to covet either our neighbour's wife or his house, is foolishly separated into two parts, whereas it is quite clear that only one thing is treated of, as we gather from the words of Paul, who quotes them as a single Commandment. (Rom. vii. 7.) There is, however, no need of a lengthened discussion here, since the fact itself explains how one error has grown out of another; for, when they had improperly hidden the Second Commandment under the First, and consequently did not find the right number, they were forced to divide into two parts what was one and indivisible. A frivolous reason is assigned by Augustine why they comprised the First Table in three commandments, viz., that believers might learn to worship God in the Trinity, and thus to adore one God in three persons. By inconsiderately trifling with such subtleties, they have exposed God's law to the mockeries of the ungodly. Jose-phus1 indeed rightly enumerates the Commandments themselves in their proper order, but improperly attributes five Commandments to each Table ; as if God had had regard to arithmetic rather than to instruct His people separately in the duties of charity, after having laid down for them the rules of piety. For up to this point the rule of rightly serving God has been delivered, i.e., the First Table embraces a summary of piety ; and now the Law will begin to shew how men ought to live with each other, otherwise one Table would have been enough, nor would God have divided His Law without a purpose. But whereas piety2 and justice comprise the perfect rule for the direction of our lives, it was necessary to distinguish these two parts, that the people might understand the object of the Law, of which we shall again speak hereafter. Exod. xx. 12. Honour thy father. Although charity (as being " the bond of perfectness," Col. iii. 14) contains the ╗ See Jewish Antiq., book iii. chap. v. з 5. In sect. 8 it is added: " When he had said this he shewed them two tables, with the ten commandments engraven upon them, five upon each table; and the writing was by the hand of God." 2 " La piete que nous devons a Dieu, et l'equite que nous devons a nos prochains;" the piety which we owe to God, and the equity which we owe to our neighbours.ЧFr. OTH COMMANDMENT. LAST BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 7 sum of the Second Table, still, mutual obligation does not prevent either parents or others, who are in authority, from retaining their proper position. Nay, human society cannot be maintained in its integrity, unless children modestly submit themselves to their parents, and unless those, who are set over others by God's ordinance, are even reverently honoured. But inasmuch as the reverence which children pay to their parents is accounted a sort of piety, some have therefore foolishly placed this precept in the First Table. Nor are they supported in this by Paul, though he does not enumerate this Commandment, where he collects the sum of the Second Table, (Rom. xiii. 9 ;) for he does this designedly, because he is there expressly teaching that obedience is to be paid to the authority of kings and magistrates. Christ, however, puts an end to the whole controversy, where, among the precepts of the Second Table, He enumerates this, that children should honour their parents. (Matt, xix. 19.) The name of the mothers is expressly introduced, lest their sex .should render them contemptible to their male children. It will be now well to ascertain what is the force of the word "honour," not as to its grammatical meaning, (for "QD, cabad, is nothing else but to pay due honour to God, and to men who are in authority,) but as to its essential signification. Surely, since God would not have His servants comply with external ceremonies only, it cannot be doubted but that all the duties of piety towards parents are here comprised, to which children are laid under obligation by natural reason itself; and these may be reduced to three heads, i.e., that they should regard them with reverence ; that they should obediently comply with their commands, and allow themselves to be governed by them ; and that they should endeavour to repay what they owe to them, and thus heartily devote to them themselves and their services. Since, therefore, the name of Father is a sacred one, and is transferred to men by the peculiar goodness of God, the dishonouring of parents redounds to the dishonour of God Himself, nor can any one despise his father without being 8 calvin's habmony op the four exod. xx. 12. guilty of an offence against God, (sacrilegium.) If any should object that there are many ungodly and wicked fathers whom their children cannot regard with honour without destroying the distinction between good and evil, the reply is easy, that the perpetual law of nature is not subverted by the sins of men ; and therefore, however unworthy of honour a father may be, that he still retains, inasmuch as he is a father, his right over his children, provided it does not in anywise derogate from the judgment of God ; for it is too absurd to think of absolving under any pretext the sins which are condemned by His Law ; nay, it would be a base profanation to misuse the name of father for the covering of sins. In condemning, therefore, the vices of a father, a truly pious son will subscribe to God's Law ; and still, whatsoever he may be, will acknowledge that he is to be honoured, as being the father given him by God. Obedience comes next, which is also circumscribed by certain limits. Paul is a faithful interpreter of this Commandment, where he bids " children obey their parents." (Eph. vi. 1 ; Col. iii. 20.) Honour, therefore, comprises subjection ; so that he who shakes off the yoke of his father, and does not allow himself to be governed by his authority, is justly said to despise his father ; and it will more clearly appear from other passages, that those who are not obedient to their parents are deemed to despise them. Still, the power of a father is so limited as that God, on whom all relationships depend, should have the rule over fathers as well as children ; for parents govern their children only under the supreme authority of God. Paul, therefore, does not simply exhort children to obey their parents, but adds the restriction, " in the Lord;" whereby he indicates that, if a father enjoins anything unrighteous, obedience is freely to be denied him. Immoderate strictness, moroseness, and even cruelty must be borne, so long as a mortal man, by wickedly demanding what is not lawful, does not endeavour to rob God of His right. In a word, the Law so subjects children to their parents, as that God's right may, remain uninfringed. An objection here arises in the shape of this question: It may sometimes happen that a son may hold OTH COMMANDMENT. LAST BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 9 the office of a magistrate, but that the father may be a private person, and that thus the son cannot discharge his private duty without violating public order. The point is easily solved : that all things may be so tempered by their mutual moderation as that, whilst the father submits himself to the government of his son,1 yet he may not be at all defrauded of his honour, and that the son, although his superior in power, may still modestly reverence his father. The third head of honour is, that children should take care of their parents, and be ready and diligent in all their duties towards them. This kind of piety the Greeks call avrmekap-