At ch. 15, q. 9, Tostatus says: “Perhaps someone can say [that] God permitted an error in those lots, as he not rarely permits [one] in everyday dividing-lots.” But [as to] by whom this was said, he brings forth no one. Nor indeed can anyone be wise who would dare to impute any error to these lots — commanded by God for dividing the land, and so greatly praised and commended (Num. 26 & 34, & above, ch. 13). But the “manner” by which, by the Judaic tribe, an inheritance greater than fair was received — another, twofold, [explanation] is brought forward. One [manner], from Lyra: [that] the land given to the Judaic tribe was twofold — one, namely, as a proper inheritance, from the oracle of the divine lot; the other, as a beneficiary accession [addition], from the benevolent grant of the whole people. For [he says] there were, in the neighborhood of the Judaic borders, some Canaanite nations, whose land — if [Judah] could occupy it and dislodge them — was given to it; and [that] the Simeonites [were] admitted into this [land], not into the field of [Judah’s] proper portion, and [were] kindly received by the Jews. And this opinion the same Lyra praises, as [the best] of all expositors, as it were. But Abulensis, at q. 2 here, deservedly hisses it off [rejects it]. For, clearer than clear, the context asserts (v. 1 & 9) [that] a home [Lar] was given to the Simeonites “in the midst of the inheritance and cord of the Jews.” But “inheritance” and “cord” — what [do they] denote except a proper and measured-out portion? And lest anyone wonder [that] the inheritance and cord of these [Judahites was] too much diminished and straitened by so many thousands of new colonists received [into it], the cause — as we saw — is immediately subjoined: namely, that that very inheritance and cord of the Jews had been much greater and more spread-out than it ought [to be]. Another “manner,” therefore, is brought forward by the same Abulensis: [that] the lot — which assigned to each tribe its region and site — did not err, but the dividers themselves [erred], who assigned to each tribe the extent [amplitude], in the region and site shown by the lot, according to the multitude of that tribe. For these [dividers], at that first beginning of the division, [are supposed] to have considered the magnitude of the Judaic tribe (which surpassed all the others by several thousands — Num. 2:3 & ch. 26:22), and to have thought [that] all the tribes were to dwell most spaciously, and [that] there was space abundantly enough in the promised land for that spaciousness and every convenience. But afterward, in the second division — some years having now elapsed — a greater knowledge of the places having been gained (through the people itself, and the surveyors sent a second time, and those more [in number]), the error was detected; and so, from the over-ample portion of the Judaic tribe, something was plucked and cut off — namely, as much as would then suffice for the Simeonic tribe. For although, in the second year from the departure out of Egypt, [there] were numbered in that [tribe] 59,300 (Num. 2:13), yet in the last year [there] were in the same [tribe] only 22,200 (Num. 26:14). This error can be better understood from those [things] which [were] disputed at ch. 13, q. 12, where [the thing] which was asked — “Whether through Urim & Thummim the extent of the borders was assigned to each tribe?” — appears [that it] is to be denied. For just as [God] governing the lots, so [also] God answering through Urim & Thummim, could by no means err. But this error of the dividing chiefs — whether [it] was born from the error of the earlier surveyors (which some unskillfulness or negligence begot), or indeed from their very own inconsideration and carelessness alone — I do not define. Either could have happened. For almost all the beginnings of human affairs are wont to be crude, imperfect, and unskilled — as [is] noted by Aristotle in the Dialectics; and indeed, in the sciences, arts, and all crafts, [it] can be noted by anyone and seen daily. But this error can furnish us [with] great lessons of wisdom. For we see, first, the weakness of our human reason, and [that it is] blind
(col. 1193)
[…continued from col. 1192.] and blindness — which, even in earthly things that can be perceived by the eyes, and touched by hands and feet, so greatly grows dim, so easily goes astray, [and] so rashly decides something. Secondly: we see, in sacred and good things, [that] when certain divine and human [elements] — connected and intertwined — concur among themselves, [we are] always to apply to the divine [ones] the most certain and most firm faith; but to these [human ones], not an equally certain and firm [faith], but only a human [faith], which admits something of opinion and doubt — unless perchance it were established to us from elsewhere [that] those human [elements] are divinely propped up and governed. Here the divine [element] was the lot: [there] was no error in it, or from it, in the site of the places where the individual tribes ought to settle. To [it] was added the human deliberation and judgment of the men dividing: to this [human element], no divine power, no supernatural and special aid or concurrence, had been promised. [It] therefore slipped, and pronounced less prudently and accurately concerning the Judaic borders. Thus in that [instance] in which our Innovators [Protestants] so greatly exult — and in which that traitorous Calvinist, the Chancellor of Saxony, while he paid the penalty from his own Lutheran Prince on account of [his] Calvinist tricks, placed [his] hope, [his] anchor, and all his defense (as [is] handed down to memory by the Lutherans themselves) in [this] syllogism: “Whoever shall have believed and been baptized shall be saved. I, Nicolaus Crellius, believe, and am baptized. Therefore [I shall be saved].” The [major] proposition is divine (Mark 16:16); the assumption [minor premise] is human. But let us proceed. Thirdly: when the error of the dividers [was] made manifest, they willingly corrected it. They did not cry out [that] their esteem [was] diminished, [that] some disgrace [was] branded on them, [that] they [were] called into contempt; nor did they wish pertinaciously to maintain, and [hold] fixed, that which had been decreed by them [after] the surveyors [were] heard; but, the error [being] discovered, [they willed] rather [that] their own judgment be rescinded, [that] the parts of the inheritances be made otherwise, and [that] their division be corrected publicly and openly. And yet [they] were princely men, distinguished phylarchs [tribal chiefs], given and named by God himself for the office of dividing, as we saw above (ch. 13, q. 10). Great, indeed, was the modesty of these [men], great the virtue and prudence. To err and to slip is [the mark] of a man; [but] not to return to the way — when one has noticed [that one is] erring — and not to rise again, when one may, after a fall, is [the mark] of a log or a stone, indeed more than of a beast. “[It] is not,” says Seneca (bk. 4 On Benefits, ch. 38), “levity [inconstancy] to depart from an acknowledged and condemned error. And [it] must be ingenuously confessed: ‘I thought otherwise, I was deceived.’ But this is a proud perseverance of folly — [namely] that what I once said, of whatever sort it is, should be fixed and ratified. It is not base to change [one’s] counsel along with the matter [as circumstances change].” But I treated of this elsewhere, when I dealt with the useful and wise return of heretics to the Catholic Church. Let the same Seneca be seen (bk. 2 On Anger), Tertullian (On Modesty ch. 1), St. Ambrose (Epistle 3), St. Augustine (On the Words of the Apostle, sermon 22, ch. 10; the book Against the Epistle of the Foundation ch. 2; the book On the Usefulness of Believing ch. 1, 2, & 3), St. Chrysostom (homily 46 to the people). Now, fourthly: [that] its possessions are diminished, [that] it is enclosed within narrower bounds, [that] no small part of its inheritance is given to others — the whole tribe of Judah bears [this] with moderation. How splendid [is] this! [That] a brother [should] not yield to [his] brother a little house, a little field, a little dish, a single footstep, or some little trifle — how many lawsuits, oftentimes, [arise] among them? what forensic [court] battles? what bitter hatreds? Truly these [of Judah] are the sons of Abraham — who so willingly yielded the land which [Lot] might choose (Gen. 13). They did not complain [that] their possession [was] snatched from them, [that] they [were] reduced into a strait, [that] they [were] despoiled of a right already given and acquired; but, when [they] saw the dividers themselves confess their error, and apply a correction and measure to the prior division, imitating their modesty, they preferred [that], with justice and equity, a part of their inheritance be taken from them, rather than [that it] be left whole, with the injury and detriment of the other tribes. It is doggish [canine] to admit no one into a share of the goods which have fallen to one — as [in] that common, noteworthy little verse: “While a dog gnaws a bone, [even] the companion whom it loves, it hates.” But, on the contrary, among men to whom humanity [kindness] is dear, all things of friends [are] common.