Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, Theological treatise · Chapter 28 · Questions · Question 22 – Question 25
QUEST. XXII. That it is not now certainly knowne, what these precious stones were, their qualities and signification.
BUt now in the description of these precious stones, these things generally must be observed: 1. That neither their names, colours, nor properties are certainly knowne either to the Hebrewes, or Greekes, as appeareth by the variety and difference of opinion, and translation. 2. But as for the supernaturall properties, which Dioscorides attributeth unto them: as that the Smaragd chaseth away Devils, the Sardie preventeth withcraft, the Saphir giveth victory: the Achates causeth one to dreame, and allayeth tempests: the Onyx raiseth strife, causeth feare: the Chrysolite worne in gold, prevaileth against evill spirits: of these strange operations there can be no reason given, and they are beyond the reach and compasse of naturall things: and such observations tend rather to superstition, than any profitable instruction. 3. Likewise it is uncertaine which of these precious stones were assigned to each of the tribes. Montanus setteth downe the tribes in this order: Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Iuda, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Nepthali, Gad, Asher, Ioseph, Benjamin, therein following the Chalde Paraphrast: In which order he setteth downe all the sonnes of Leah, before the sonnes of the handmaids. But this is against the text, vers. 10. which directeth their names to be set in order, according to their generation and age. Tostatus observeth the order of nature as they were borne: Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Iudah, Dan, Nepthali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Ioseph, Benjamin: Ribera, Pelargus follow the same order, saving that they leave out Levi, and for Ioseph put in Ephraim and Manasseh, which is the more probable: because the high Priest of Levi was to beare this pectorall, who stood for that tribe, that there needed no stone of remembrance. And seeing this breast-plate was to continue a long time, it is like the tribes were rehearsed, as they were afterward appointed: Ephraim and Manasseh being counted for two tribes.The twelve stones in the high Priests pectorall, compared with the twelve stones, Apocal. 21.19. 4. Yet there is more certainty what stones stood for every tribe, because the order of their birth is knowne, than which of the twelve precious stones should be assigned to the Apostles, Apocal. 21.19. whose certaine order is no where set downe in the Gospell: but they are rehearsed diversly, Mat. 10. Mark. 3. Luk. 6. Act. 1. 5. There is some difference betweene the rehearsall of these twelve precious stones, which stand for the Patriarkes, and those twelve, Apocal. 21.19. which signifie the twelve Apostles: 1. The order is not the same, for the last here, which is the Jasper, is the first there, neither are the rest set downe after the same manner. 2. There are some names, which are not here, as the Chalcidon, the Hyacinth, the Chrysolite, and Chrysoprase: though these three last are named here by some, the former by Vatablus in the tenth place, the first of the fourth row, which the Septuagint call the Chrysolite: but it is before shewed to be Beryll: and the Chrysoprase Iunius taketh for the first of the second row, which is rather the Smaragd. 3. Yet I take it that these twelve precious stones, and the other are the same in kinde though differing in names: the Iasper, the Saphir, the Smaragd, the Sardonix, the Sardius, Beryll, the Topaze, the Amethyst, are here also expressed by their names: all the question is about these foure: the Chalcedon the third, the Chrysolite the seventh, the Chrysoprase the tenth, the Hyacinth the eleventh: which may be reduced to these kindes: the Chalcedon stone, as Arethas saith, is similit coloris cum carbunculo, of like colour to the Carbuncle: so also Isidor. lib. Etym. 16. cap. 13. and therefore it may be referred to the precious stone, which is here in the third place, bareketh, the Carbuncle, as the Chalcedon is the third there, so called, because it was found in the Chalcedon Sea: or rather the Diamond may be the Chalcedon stone: for as Beda saith, Quasi ignis lucernae pallenti specie renitet; It shineth with a pale and wan colour, as the light of a lantorne: and the Diamond, is ferro candenti similis, like unto iron red hot: then the Chrysolite may be the Carbuncle, the Chrysoprase the Achate, which is of divers colours, and so is the Chrysoprase, mixed of a yellow and greene colour: the Hyacinth may be the Turkais, which Hierome taketh for the Hyacinth: which is the seventh stone in order here: and he thus further saith, Iidem in fundamentis ejus ponuntur lapides, &c. The same precious stones are there laid in the foundation of the celestiall Jerusalem, which are named here.
QUEST. XXIII. How many rings the breast-plate had, and how placed.
Vers. 22. THou shalt make two chaines, &c. 1. Tostatus thinketh, that the breast-plate had foure rings in the foure corners thereof, and that there were foure rings answerable thereunto in the Ephod, to which the breast-plate was fastened by certaine laces of blew silke: and beside, in the upper side of the breast-plate, he thinketh there were two rings more, which were fastened with two golden chaines, to the golden bosses upon the shoulders by certaine golden hookes, quest. 2. But it cannot be gathered out of the text, that the breast-plate had any more than foure rings: so also thinketh Montanus; two of those rings were made above, which should be fastned to the embossements of gold, upon the shoulders by two golden chaines, vers. 24.25. and the other two rings were on the neather side of the breast-plate below, toward the embroidered girdle of the Ephod, vers. 26. 2. Hierome also thinketh, that these foure rings in the breast-plate, Habentes alios quatuor contra se in superhumerali, had foure other rings against them in the Ephod. But there is mention made onelyonly of two rings beneath in the Ephod, by the which the breast-plate was fastened with a blew silke lace, to the two rings of the Ephod, vers. 27. for the upper side was fastened with chaines by the two rings, unto the embossements of gold upon the shoulders.
QUEST. XXIV. What is meant by the forepart thereof.
Vers. 25. THou shalt put them on the shoulders of the Ephod, on the foreside of it. 1. Cajetane understandeth this of the backer part of the Ephod, because the words are, contra facies ejus, against the face of it. But what else is against the face of the chaines ascending up, than the back-part, where they were to be fastened? But the text speaketh of the face or forepart of the breast-plate, on the face of it, not of them, that is, the chaines in the plurall. 2. Iunius thus interpreteth, Versus anteriorem partem ejus; Toward his forepart, that is, the high Priests. But it is evident, vers. 27. that it is to be referred rather to the Ephod; for no mention is made before of the Priest in this place. 3. Therefore the meaning is, hee should fasten the chaines to the shoulders of the Ephod, in anteriore parte ejus, in the forepart thereof, Lippoman. As the Latine Interpreter also giveth the sense: in that part, quod rationale respicit, which looketh toward the rationall, or pectorall.
QUEST. XXV. Whether the breast-plate were over or never untied, and loosed from the Ephod.
Vers. 28. THat the breast-plate be not loosed from the Ephod. 1. Beda is here of opinion, that the breast-plate was fastened by chaines to the Ephod, tempore inducendi, in the time onelyonly of the putting on. 2. But it is more probable, that they were not parted or separated the one from the other, no not when they were put off: for to what end should they have beene so surely fastened together, if the breast-plate were continually to be put to, and taken off againe? And this may further appeare that they went together; because when David bad Abiathar to bring the Ephod, 1 Sam. 23.9. the pectorall also with the Vrim and Thummim were joyned to it, whereby he consulted with God for David. 3. Yet were they not so tied, as Cajetane thinketh, Vt neutrum ab altero separari possit; That one could not be separated from another: for then they should have beene made all one garment, not two: but they were so fastened together, that they could not be separated, nisi quis ea separaverit, unlesse one upon some occasion did separate them, Tostat. quaest. 12.