Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Of the Iewish Exomologesis, or publike Declaration of Repentance by confession of sinne.
AS there were some footsteps of publique Confession among the Heathens, and namely among the Lacedemonians: lLorinus in Psal. 31. 5. ex Plutarcho.who made him that was deprehended in a crime, to compasse the Altar, and there to expresse his owne shame, and to pronounce some disgracefull words against himselfe. So, I make no doubt, they had this (as many other rites) from an imitation of the people of God, who had their owne Exomologesis, and publique testimonies of Repentance, which may thus appeare.
First, a man was to put his hand upon the head of the Sacrifice which he brought, and so it was accepted to make atonement for him, Lev. 1. 4. and this was done in the Tabernacle publiquely before the Priest. Genebrardus and Lorinus in Psalm 31. 5. tell us out of Aben Ezra and other Rabbinicall Autors, and ex libro Siphri, that when he that brought the Sacrifice, did put his hands between the hornes of the beast which was to be offered, he did distinctly commemorate that sinne for which he did then repent, professing his detestation thereof, and promising to do▪ so no more. Mr Ainsworth on Levit. 1. 4. to the same purpose citeth out of Maimeny in treat. of offering Sacrifices, cap. 3. these words. He layeth his hands between the two hornes, and confesseth upon the same offering, the iniquity of sinne, and upon the trespasse-offering, the iniquity of trespasse: and upon the burnt offering he confesseth the iniquity of doing that which he should not▪ and not doing that he ought, &c. Now that confession of sinne was joyned with the laying on of hands upon the Sacrifice, is not onelyonly proved by the judgement of the Hebrews, understanding the Law in that sence, but by the Law it selfe, Lev. 16. 21. where Aaron is commanded to lay his hands upon the head of the live Goat, and confesse over him all the iniquites of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sinnes, putting them upon the head of the Goat.
Secondly, the Law appointeth confession to be made at the bringing of Trespasse-offerings Levit. 5. and that in three kinds of trespasses.
1 If one heare the voyce of swearing, that is, heare his neighbour swearing or cursing, which he ought to reveale: and is a witnesse whether he hath seen or known of it: (that is, whether he himselfe hath been present at the cursing or reviling (of God Levit. 24. 10, 11. or of man, 2 Sam. 16. 7.) or hath heard it by relation from others, and knowne it that way. So the Dutch Annotations and the best Interpreters) if he doe not utter it, then he shall beare his iniquity. The meaning is when one doth for favour or malice (So Aretius and Pareus upon the place) dissemble the truth, and conceale his knowledge, and so make himselfe partaker of other mens sinnes. Grotius expounds it by Prov. 29. Who so is partner with a thiefe hateth his owne soule: he heareth a cursing and bewrayeth it not. In such a case a man did greatly scandalize all those (were they more or fewer) who knew his dissimulation, and that he did not utter his knowledge.
2 If one had touched any uncleane thing, and not being cleansed from his uncleannessemSee Ainswarth upon the place. did goe into the Sanctuary or touch an holy thing (whether he knew himselfe to have touched the uncleane thing, when he went into the Sanctuary, but did afterward forget it, as the Hebrews understand the place; or whether he did not know of his uncleannes when he went into the Sanctuary) as soon as it was revealed to him by others who did take offence at it, or otherwise brought to his knowledge, he was held guilty till confession and atonement was made. It was not simply the touching of an uncleane thing, for which the confession and trespasse-offering was appointed: Seeing the Law (saith Ainsworth) maketh such uncleane but till evening Lev. 11. 24, 31. when washing themselves and their clothes they were cleane, and for uncleannesse by a dead man, the sprinkling water cleansed them, Num. 19. 17, 18, 19. Wherefore he resolveth out of the Hebrew Doctors, that this confession of sinne, and the trespasse-offering was required in case an uncleane person in his uncleannesse came to the Sanctuary, or did eate of an holy thing.
3 If one had sworne unadvisedly, as David, 1 Sam. 25. 22. Herod, Mark 6. 23. those conspirators against Paul, Acts 23. 21. (which are the examples given in the Dutch Annotations, and they are examples of scandals) if the thing were hid from him, through the distemper, impetuosity, and passion of his spirit, overclouding the eye of his mind, so that when he hath sworn a scandalous oath, he scarce knowes or remembers well the thing. Or thus; If a man had sworne an oath to doe a thing, or not to doe it, and afterward falsified his oath, either because he could not doe what he had rashly sworne, or because he was unwilling to doe it, or because he neglected to doe it: (Aretius puts this triple case in expounding the Text:) When a man was brought to the knowledge of the falsifying of his oath, being told, or put in mind of it by others, saith Diodati, which was also a case of scandall.
In any of these three cases, a man was to confesse his …inne, when he brought his trespasse-offering, and the offering was not accepted without confession: Lev. 5. 5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering, &c. nBucer. scripta Anglicana▪ pag. 310. Nunc autem legimus▪ Lev. 4, 5. & 6. Deum populo suo ordin…sse ac mandasse: si quos de populo, de sacerdotibus, aut principibus, aut si etiam populus universus aliquid fortè deliquisset contra mand…a sua, seu …aciendo quae ipse vetuerat, seu omittendo quae praeceperat; ut tales ante se in ecclesia sua, & coram sacerdote comparerent, ibi peccatum suum confiterentur, veniam pererent, oblationes suas offerrent, & hoc modo per sacerdotem recoaciliationem consequerentur. idque haud dubiè non absque seria humiliatione, planctu, & jejunio.This confession was made in the Priests hearing, and not to God alone, as Mr Prynne affirmeth Vindic. pag. 17. For, 1. It was a cereomoniall Law, concerning the externall worship of God, and a part of the Law of trespasse-offerings. He might as well have said, that the Trespasse-offering was made to God alone, without the presence of the Priest or any other▪ 2. He himselfe doth not deny (but intimate) that till such confession was made, a man was not admitted to make atonement by trespasse-offerings. And so doe the Jewes understand the Law of confession, as we shall heare by and by. Now how could it be knowne, whether a man had confessed any thing at all, if it was secretly, and to God alone? 3. The sinnes to be confessed, were oft times scandalous and knowne to others, (as hath been cleared.) Therefore the confession was to be knowne to others also. 4 That this confession (not private and auricular, but publique and penitentiall) was made in the Temple, before and in the hearing of the Priest, I prove from Philo the Jew. In his booke de sacr. Abelis & Caini, at the close, speaking of the Levites ministery, he saith, that he did execute and performe foreign, all those services which belong to a perfect Priesthood, and to the bringing of man to God, whether by burnt-offerings, foreign aut pro peccatis quorum paenitet saith Gelenius the Interpreter, meaning the trespasse-offerings. But observe further, he speaks of the penitentiall part, as a publique thing, or rather of the publique declaration of repentance. Repentance of sinnes, that is, repentance declared or professed (which was in the confession joyned with the trespasse-offerings) was one of the chiefe things about which the Leviticall ministery was exercised: which is the cleare sence of the place. More plainly, the same Philo lib. de victimis towards the close, where he tels that certaine parts of the trespasse-offerings were eaten by the Priests, and that these must be eaten in the Temple, he gives this reason for it, lest the penitents sinne and shame should be divulged and punished more then needs must, which intimateth that the particular offence was so confessed that it was made knowne to such as were within the Temple.
The third Scripturall proofe is Num. 5. 6, 7. When a man or a woman shall commit any sinne that men commit, to doe a trespasse against the Lord, and that person be guilty, Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done: and he shall recompence his trespasse, &c. The Hebrews expound it thus: All the precepts in the Law, whether they command or forbid a thing, if a man transgresse against any one of them, either presumptuously or ignorantly, when he maketh repentance and turneth from his sinne, he is bound to confesse before the blessed God, as in Numb. 5. 7. This confession is with words, and it is commanded to be done. How doe they confesse? He saith, Oh God, I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have trespassed before thee, and have done thus and thus: and loe I repent, and am ashamed of my doings: and I will never doe this thing againe. And this is the foundation of confession. And who so maketh a large confession, and is long in this thing, he is to be commended. And so the owners of sinne and trespasse-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sinnes: atonement is not made for them by their oblation, untill they have made Repentance and Confession by word of mouth. Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates, or condemned to Stripes, no atonement is made for them by their death, or by their Stripes, untill they have repented and confessed. And so he that hurteth his Neighbour, or doth him dammage, though he pay him whatsoever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him, tell he confesse and turne away from doing so againe for ever, as it is written in Num. 5. 6. Any of all the sinnes of men. All this Ainsworth transcribeth out of Maimony in Misn. treat. of Repentance, Chap. 1. Sect. 1. See also the Latin Edition of the Jewish Canons of Repentance Printed at Cambridge Ann. 1631. Where beside that passage in the first Chapter, concerning the necessity of confessing by word of mouth, that sinne for which the Trespasse offering was brought, you have another plaine passage, cap. 2. for (oEximia l…us est paenitentiam agenti, ut publicè confiteatur, iniquitates suas toti caetui indicans, & delicta quae in proximum admisit, aliis aperiens hunc in modum. Revera peccavi in N. N. (virum nominans) & haec vell illa feci: Ecce autem me vobis nunc convertor, & me facti paenitet. Qui vero prae super…ia non indicat, sed abscondit iniquitates suas▪ ill… perfecta non est paenitentia: quia dicitur, Qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur. Haec dicta intelligenda sunt de peccatis quae in proximum admittuntur. Verum in transgressionibus quae sunt hominis in Deum, non necesse est cuiquam seipsum propalare: Quin imò perfrictae frontis est, illiusmodi peccata revelare: Sed in conspectu Dei paenitentiam agit, & coram illo peccata haec speciatim recenset.) publike confession (not of private sinnes known to God onelyonly, but) of known sinnes by which others were scandalized.
In which passage I nnderstand by sinnes against God, sinnes known to God onelyonly. 1. Because its forbidden to reveale those sinnes, therefore they were secret. 2. Because otherwise those Canons shall contradict themselves, for cap. 1. it's told us that all who brought trepasse offerings, were bound to confesse by word of mouth, the sinne which they had done, without which confession, they got not leave to make atonement by the trespasse-offering. Now trespasse offerings were for sinnes against God as well as for sinnes against man. 3. It should otherwise contradict the Law Num. 5. 6. which appointeth any sinne or trespasse against the Lord to be confessed. 4. Those trespasses were to be publikely confessed, for which in case of impenitency and obstinacy, a man was excommunicated with Cherem, or the greater Excommunication. But a man was excommunicated for divers sinnes against God, which did not at all wrong his Neighbour, setting a side the scandall. Which I have proved before. These four reasons will prove either that the meaning of that Canon must be of private sinnes, and not of publike and scandalous sinnes against the first Table: or otherwise that the Canon is contrary to and inconsistent with both Scripture, Reason, and other Rabbinnicall writings.
From the Law Num. 5. thus explained, observe concerning the Confession of sinne. 1. It was for any scandalous sinne, of commission or omission against the first or second Table. 2. It was not free and voluntary to the offender. I doe not say that he w…s compelled to it by any externall Force or coercive power: but he was commanded and obliged by the Law to confesse; Vatablus on Num. 5. 7. Fatebuntur 1. …. t…nebuntur fateri, they shall confesse, that is, they shall be bound to confesse: and a man was not admitted with his trespasse offering except he confessed. 3. It was done by word of mouth. 4. And publikely before the Congregation that were present. 5. pHanc … confessionem Hebraei vocant confessionem super peccato singulari, quia in aliis sacrificiis siebat confessio peccatorum generalis, saith …atablus upon the place.The particular trespasse was named in the Confession. 6. Sinnes both of Ignorance and Malice, when scandalous, were to be confessed. 7. The sinner was not slinted to a Prescript forme of words in Confession, but was to enlarge his confession, as his heart was enlarged. 8. In Criminall and Capitall cases, beside the civill or corporall punishment, confession was to be made, because of the scandall which had been given. Which doth further appeare from the Talmud it selfe in Sanhedrin. cap. 6. Sect. 2. for that is observed in all who are put to death, that they must confesse; for whoever doth confesse he hath part in the world to come; and namely it is recorded of Achan, that Joshua said to him, my Sonne give now Glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him; And Achan answered, Indeed, I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and thus and thus &c. Whence is it collected that his confession did expiate his sinne. And Joshua said, why hast thou troubled us? God shall trouble thee this day. This day thou shalt be troubled, not in the world to come. The like you read of Achan in Pirke R. Elieser cap. 38. I know Achans confession was not in the Sanctuary, nor at a Trespasse offering. But I make mention of it because qConfirm. Thes. pag. 106. 113.Erastus holdeth that under the Law, confession was onelyonly required in such cases, where the sinne was not criminall or capitall. Which is confuted by the afore-mentioned passages in Maimonides and the Talmud it selfe: proving that whether the sinne was expiated by Sacrifice or by death, it was alwayes to be confessed; from the same example of Achan doth P. rEx …o quod in libro Joma, id est, dierum, in capite, jom h…kippurim, id est, dies propitiationum, ita scribitur. Dixit Rab. Hunna: Omnis qui transgressione transgressus est, necesse est ut singulatim exprimat peccatum.Galatinus lib. 10. cap. 3. prove that Declaration of repentance was to be made by word of mouth, and that the sinne was to be particularly confessed, which he further proveth by another rabbinicall passage.
In the fourth place, Io. 9. 24. seemeth to hold forth a judiciall publike confession of sinne to have been required of scandalous sinners. The Pharisees being upon an examination of him that was born blind, and was made to see, they labour to drive him so farre from confessing Christ, as to confesse sinne and wicked collusion, Give God the Praise say they, we know that this man is a sinner. Which is to be expounded by Ios. 7. 19. Give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession.
Fifthly, as the Jewes had an Excommunication, so they had an absolution, and that which interveened was Confession and Declaration of Repentance. And hence came the Arabik foreign nadam, he hath repented; and foreign nadim a penitent, the Niddui made the nadim: for when a man was excommunicated by the lesser Excommunication, sSeld. de jure nat. & Gentium lib. 4. cap. 8. Pro diversitate peccati & peccantis moribus, nunc citius nunc serius sequebatur absolutio. Sed ut plurimum excommunicatio fiebat in diem tricesimum &c. Intra hoc tempus exspectabat forum ut ad Bonam …ediret. mentem, …, & quae juberent ipsi praestaret &c. Post trignta di…um contumaciam, idem tempus semel i…erabatur &c▪ At vero s… ▪ neque intra id spatii paenitens absolutionem pe…eret, foreign Cherem seu Anathemate feriebatur.the Consistory waited first 30. dayes, and then other 30. dayes, and as some thinke (the third time) 30. dayes, to see whether the offender were penitent, (which could not be known without confession) and would seek absolution: which if he did not, but continued obstinate & impenitent, then they proceeded to the greater excommunication. Which doth prove a publike Confession, at least in the case of the excommunicated.
Sixthly, we find a publike penitentiall confession Ezra. 10. 10. 11. And Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them, ye have transgressed and have taken strange wives to encrease the trespasse of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your Fathers, and doe his pleasure, and separate your selves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Marke here the foresaking of the sinne could not su…fice without confessing the sinne. All Israel had sworne and covenanted to doe the thing, to put away the strange wives vers. 5. But Ezra the Priest tells them they must also make confession of their sinne; confession of their former trespasse must be joyned with Reformation for the future: All which the people promise to doe as Ezra had said vers. 12. But what was this confession? was it onelyonly a private confession to God alone? or was it onelyonly a generall confession made by the whole congregration of Israel at a solemne Fast and humiliation? Nay, that there was a third sort of Confession differing from both these, appeareth by vers. 13. neither is this a worke of one day or two: for we are many that have transgressed in this thing; yea, three Moneths are spent in the businesse, vers. 16, 17. during which space, all that had taken strange wives, came at appointed times out of every City, and were successively examined by Ezra the Priest and certaine chiefe of the Fathers and Levites, (such of both, as were not themselves guilty) before whom such as were found guilty did make Confession: The Sons of the Priests made Confession as well as others, yea, with the first; and gave their hands, that they would put away their wives: and being guilty, they offerered a Ram of the Flock for their trespasse. With which trespasse offering confession was ever joyned, as hath been before shewed from the Law.
Seventhly, Master Hildersham of worthy memory in his 34. Lecture upon Psal. 51. draweth a… Argument from Davids example for the publike Confession of a scandalous sinne before the Church, He made, saith he, publike Confession of his sinne to the Congregation and Church of God; for we see in the Title of this Psalme. 1. That he committed this Psalme (that containeth the acknowledgement of his sinne, and profession of his repentance) to the chief musitian to be published in the Sanctuary and Temple. 2 That in this publication of his Repentance, he hideth not from the Church his sinne, nor cloketh it at all, but expresseth in particular the speciall sinne, &c. Adde hereunto, this publike Confession was made after ministeriall conviction by Nathan, who did convince David of the greatnesse of that scandalous sinne, in which he had then continued impenitent neer a yeer or thereabout. The Doctrin which Master Hildersham draweth from Davids example is this, That they whose sinnes God hath detected and brought to light, whose sinnes are publike and notorious, scandalous and offensive to the congregations where they live, ought to be willing to confesse their sins publikely, to make their Repentance as publike and notorious as their sinne is. He addeth in his explanation, when they shall be required to doe it by the Discipline of the Church. Marke one of his applications (which is the Subject of the 37. Lecture) The second sort that are to be reproved by this Doctrine, are such as having authority to enjoyne publike Repentance to scandalous sinners, for the satisfying of the Congregation, when they are detected and presented unto them, refuse or neglect to doe it. And here he complaineth, that the publike acknowledgement of scandalous sinnes, was grown out of use, and that though it was ordered by authority, yet it was not put in execution. The Canons of our Church (saith he) can. 26. straightly charge every Minister, That he shall not in any wise admit to the Communion, any of his flock which be openly known to live in sinne notorious without Repentance. And the Booke of Common Prayer in the rubrike before the Communion, commandeth, that if any be an open and notorious evill liver, so that the Congregation by him is offended, the Minister shall call him, and advertise him in any wise, not to presume to the Lords Table, till he hath openly declared himself, to have truly repented, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied, which were afore offended. So that you may see the Lawes and Discipline of our Church, require that open and scandalous sinners should d…e open and publike Repentance▪ yea, give power to the Minister to repell and keepe back such from the Communion that refuse to doe it. Where it may be observed by the way, that the Power of Elder-ships for suspending scandalous persons (not Excommunicated) from the Sacrament, now so much contented against by Master Prynne, is but the same Power which was granted by authority to the Ministery, even in the prelaticall times. And he hath upon the matter endeavoured to bring the Consciences of a whole Elder-ship into a greater servitude under this present Reformation, then the Conscience of a single Minister was formerly brought under by Law in this particular.
Eightly, Master Hildersham Ibid. Lect. 34. argueth not onelyonly … pari, but … fortiori. If a necessity of satisfying an offended Brother, how much more a necessity of satisfying an offended Church, which will equally hold both for the old and new Testament? His owne words are very well worth the transcribing. This is evident by those two Laws Lev. 6. 5. 6. and Num. 5. 6. 8. where God plainly taught his people, that their trespasse offering which they brought to him, to seeke pardon of any sinne, whereby they had wronged any man, should not be accepted, till they had first made satisfaction to the party to whom the wrong was done. And le…t we should thinke those Lawes concerned the Jewes onelyonly, our Saviour himselfe giveth this in charge Matth. 5. 23. 24. If thou bringest thy Gift to the Altar, and there remembrest that thy Brother hath ought against thee: leave there thy Gift before the Altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy Gift. And if there be such necessity of making satisfaction to any one Brother that hath ought against us, before we can get assurance of our reconciliation with God, what necessity is there of making satisfaction to a whole Church and Congregation, that we have given just cause of offence unto? In this case it is not sufficient to approve our Repentance and truth of heart to God; we must be willing also and desirous to approve it to the Congregation and Church of God, that we may say as the two Tribes and halfe said, Josh. 22. The Lord God of Gods he knoweth, and Israel he shall know. Thus Master Hildersham.