Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn from the Law of Moses.
AMong Erastus kConfirm. Thes. lib 1. cap. 3. & 4.his arguments against Excommunication, three of them, namely, the first, the seventh, and the sixteenth, are all one for the substance, the strength of them lying in this supposition, that the Scripture doth not restraine, nor keep off any from the Sacrifices nor any other Sacraments (as he speaketh) of the old Testament, because of a wicked or scandalous conversation: but contrariwise commandeth that all the males both Jewes and forreiners, being circumcised, and not being legally uncleane, nor in a journey, should compear thrice in the yeere before the Lord at Ierusalem, to keepe the three solemn feasts, of the Passeover, Weeks, and Tabernacles. Now (saith he) Christ hath not in this thing destroyed nor altered the Law of Moses, nor hath he made the rule straiter now then it was then: but as then all circumcised, so now all baptized persons must be acknowledged for Church members, having a right to partake of Church priviledges: and as then there was no discipline or punishment for the flagitious and wicked, except by the hand of the Magistrate; so ought it to be in like manner in the Christian Church. This argument he trusteth very much unto. And because it is the common opinion, that the excluding and separating of the uncleane under the Law, did signifie the excluding of scandalous sinners from communion with the Church, he spendeth lLib. 2. cap. 1.a long chapter against that opinion, and laboureth to make it appeare that the legall uncleannesse did signifie the corruption of our nature and unbeliefe; that exclusion from the Temple did signifie exclusion from the heavenly Paradice; and that the cleansing and reception into the Temple, did tipyfie the cleansing of our souls, and the turning of us to God by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Now here I shall make such animadversions, as shall not onelyonly enervate the strength which these arguments may seem to have against Church censures: but also afford some strong reasonings against Erastus, from those very grounds rightly apprehended, from which (upon misapprehensions) he disputeth against the excluding of scandalous sinners. First, it is certaine that for divers sinnes against the morall Law, the sinners were appointed not onelyonly to bring their Trespasseofferings, but to confesse the sinne which they had committed, and to declare their repentance for the same, and till this was done, the Trespasse-offering was not accepted. Let us but have the like, that is a confession of the sinne, and declaration of repentance, and then men shall not be excluded for scandals formerly given. mPag. 106, 107, 148, 149.Erastus himselfe acknowledgeth that in this point of the confession of sinne, the analogy must hold betwixt the old and new Testament; onelyonly he pleadeth, that the very act, the very desiring of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is really a confession that he is a sinner who desireth it: and that, much more, it may suffice, if sinners being asked by the Minister, confesse themselves to be sinners, and that they have not perfectly kept the Commandements of God. But all this, say I, can not satisfie the argument drawn from that confession of sinne under the Law. For, 1. It was not a confession ipso facto, by the bringing of the Trespasse-offerings, but by word of mouth, and nSee Ainsworth▪ annot. on Num. 5. 7.thus it hath been expounded by the Hebrew Doctors. The owners of siune 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. 2. It was not a generall confession that one is a sinner, and hath not perfectly kept the Commandements of God, (for who did ever refuse to make such a confession, that were in their right wits? that limitation is as good as nothing, when we speake of the suspending of any from the Lords Table.) But it was a confession of the particular individuall sinne, which had been committed, Levit. 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. Marke, in that thing. Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done. oAinsworth on Lev…t. 6 4.Which Law is to be understood of all like sinnes and trespasses, that is, that other sinnes which were expiated by Sacrifice, were first to be confessed. All this maketh against Erastus.
Next, whereas he saith pPag. 106. 113.that this confession or declaration of repentance for sinne, in the old Testament, had place onelyonly in those sinnes for which the Law appointed no particular punishments: and that there was no confession imposed where the Magistrate was to punish the crime: This with a great deale of boldnesse and considence (as his manner is) he doth maintaine: Intending thereby (it seems) to exempt from all manner of Church-discipline whatsoever is punishable by the civill Magistrate, as adultery, perjury, and the like. But that which he affirmeth so strongly, is manifestly contrary to the expresse Law, Levit. 6. from vers. 1. to vers. 8. where wilfull lying, and perjury, robbing and violence, fraud and couzenage, all these were to be confessed and expiated by Sacrifice; notwithstanding that they were also to be severely punished by the civill Magistrate. Nay, in that very place it is commanded that what had been violently taken away, or deceitfully gotten, or fraudulently detained, should be restored, and moreover a fifth part added thereto, for a mulct, yet this did not exempt the sinner from making confession. So Num. 5. 6, 7, 8. for one and the same offence the Law enjoyneth both that confession be made and expiation; and moreover that recompence be made to the party injured or to his kinsman. Yea the Law, Num. 5. 6, 7. speaketh universally; When a man or woman shall commit any sinne that men commit, &c. then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done. Which made the Hebrews extend this Law to criminall and capitall cases, as Mr. Ainsworth upon the place noteth out of these words of Maimony. 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 payeth him what ever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him till he confesse. Therfore Erastus is still a double loser in arguing from the Law of Moses. It proves not what he would, and it doth prove what he would not.
Thirdly, men were kept from the Sanctuary of the Lord, not onelyonly for ceremoniall, but for morall uncleannesse, I meane for publique and scandalous sinnes against the morall Law. Ezech. 44. 7, 9. God was offended when such proselytes were brought into his Sanctuary, as were either uncircumcised in flesh, or uncircumcised in heart; that is, whose practise or conversation did declare them to be uncircumcised in heart: else the Lord would not have challenged those who brought such proselytes into his Sanctuary, if their uncircumcision of heart had not been externally manifested, so that it might be perceived by his people; according to that Psalm 36. 1. The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no feare of God before his eyes. To the same purpose we read Ezra 6. 21. not that all proselytes, nor all uncircumcised, but onelyonly all such as had seperate themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the Land, to seeke the Lord God of Israel, did eate of the Passeover. Moreover we may argue by a necessary consequence from Scripture. The ceremoniall uncleannesse was a cause of exclusion from the Sanctuary, and from the holy things. Therefore much more morall uncleannesse. It was more sinfull in its selfe, and more abominable in Gods sight for those who did steale, murder, commit adultery, sweare falsely, and burne Incense to Baal, to come and tread in the Courts of the house of the Lord, and to offer Sacrisices there, as if Gods house had been a denne of robbers, Isa. 1. 11, 12, 13, 14. Ierem. 7. 9, 10, 11. This I say was more abominable to God then if he that had touched a dead body, or had come into the tent where a man died, should have come unto the Tabernacle in his legall uncleannesse. Therefore when Christ casteth out the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, it is not for ceremoniall but morall uncleannesse, and he applieth to them the words of Ieremiah, Ye have made it a denne of theeves, Matth. 21. 13. with Ierem. 7. 11. And as it was more sinfull to the person, and more hatefull to God, so it was more hurtfull to the soules of others, who were in greater danger of infection from the morall, then from the ceremoniall uncleannesse. This qPag. 145. Cum ergo quaeritur cur ei qui semen praeter voluntatem noctu emisit, ad sacra adire non licuerit, priusquàm mundaretur, scortatori autem & concubinario licuerit? respondeo, quia ille ad se appropinquantes contaminabat; hic Deo & sibi immundus tantum erat: aliosque non magis inquinabat, quàm si cum uxore legitima cubavisset.Erastus denieth indeed, but his expression is unsavoury and unholy, which I am ashamed to repeat. Sure the Apostle speaketh farre othewise Heb. 13. 15, 16. Lest any root of bitternesse sp…inging up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator, or prophane person, as Esan. A prophane or scandalous person defileth, you see, many others: and sinne was of a defiling nature under the old Testament, as well as under the new. I meane a root of bitternesse not plucked up, a prophane person not censured, doth defile others, as well as himselfe. Both Peter and Iude have told us, that scandalous persons are spots and blemishes in the communion of Saints, 2 Pet. 2. 13. Iude vers. 12. So that as Erastus granteth, that one legally uncleane could make others legally uncleane among whom he came, and therefore was kept off from fellowship and company with the congregation of Gods people: It must likewise be granted, that scandalous persons are to be suspended from the sacred communion of the Christian Church, because if they should be admitted, the Church should be thereby sinfully defiled. For if the saying God speed to a false teacher make us partakers of his evill deeds 2 Iohn 10. how much more doth the admitting of such or the like scandalous sinners to the Lords Table make (I say not all who communicate then and there, but) all who consent to their admission, to be partakers of their evill deeds.
Fourthly, whereas rPag. 140. Quocirca non fuit exclusio haec, qua propter legis immunditiam aliqui prohibebantur venire in caetus publicos, sigu…a rei cujuspiam in hoc seculo complendae, sed i…ago & simulacrum suit rei in altera vita persiciendae.Erastus holdeth that the exclusion of the uncleane under the Law, did onelyonly typyfie something which is to come to passe in the life to come, that is, the shutting forth of sinners from the Heavenly Paradice, if they be not washed from their silthynesse by the blood of Jesus Christ: and therefore ought not to be unto us any argument for the exclusion of scandalous sinners. I answer, If the shutting out from Heaven was the onelyonly thing signified, and if there be a fit analogy or proportion between the Type and the thing typified, then 1. one may be in Heaven and cast out againe, and in and out againe, as under the Law one might be many times admitted to the Temple and shut out againe. 2. It would also follow, that there is some other exclusion greater then the exclusion from Heaven, as under the Law there was a greater exclusion than the exclusion from the Sanctuary, and that was to be cast out from the company and conversation of Gods people: sTostatus in Levit. 12. quast. 21.for though every uncleannesse which did exclude one from the company of the Israelites, did also exclude him from the Sanctuary; yet every uncleannesse which did exclude one from the Sanctuary, did not exclude him from the company of the Israelites. Even as now among us, suspension from the Lords Table is not the greatest and worst exclusion, but there is another greater then that. Thus you see Erastus could not make his Type agree with his Antitype. Whence it doth further appeare that the exclusion of the uncleane under the Law, did teach and hold forth somewhat in a politicall sence, touching the communion and fellowship of the Church in this life. Whatsoever it might signifie more, I will not now dispute, but this it did signifie. And this I shall so farre make good, that I shall at once both answer Erastus, and propound a strong argument for the keeping off from the holy things those that are morally aud scandalously encleane. First, let it be remembered that I have proved already from Heb. 13. 15, 16. 2 Pet. 2. 13. Iude vers. 12. that the people of God are defiled by communion and fellowship with scandalous sinners. In the second place consider that prophecy, Isa. 52. 1. Put on thy beautifull garments, O Jesusalem, the holy City: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised aud the uncleane. That whole Chapter is a prophecy concerning the condition of the Church in the New Testament, as is evident by six parallels at least. Vers. 5. with Rom. 2. 24. Vers. 7. with Rom. 10. 15. Vers. 10. with Luke 3. 6. the beginning of Vers. 11. with Revel. 18. 4. the following part of Vers. 11. with 2 Cor. 6. 17. Vers. 15. with Rom. 15. 21. Neither is it the Church invisible, but the Church visible, for Vers. 15. is applied to the calling of the Gentiles Rom. 15. 21. and Vers. 11. to the Churches open separation from Babylon, Revel. 18. 4. It is also the Church ministeriall Vers. 7, 8, 11. How beautifull upon the mountaines are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, &c. Thy watchmen shall lift up the voyce, &c. Be ye cleane that beare the vessels of the Lord. It remaines to consider what is meant by the uncleane, Vers. 1. it cannot be meant of legall uncleannesse (the ceremoniall Law being abolished) nor of the hid uncleannesse of close hypocrites (for in that sence it is onelyonly the priviledge of the Church triumphant, that no uncleane thing, nor no hypocrite shall enter there.) It must therefore be meant of such as are visibly or scandalously uncleane. And when it is said, there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised, and the uncleane, it must be understood respective, the uncircumcised, signifying such as are not fit to be at all Churchmembers: the uncleane signifying such as are not fit to have communion in the holy things: for so these two were distinguished under the Law. Thirdly, there is another place which (to me) puts it out of controversie, 2 Cor. 6: 14, 15, 16, 17. Where the Apostle exhorteth believers to avoyd all intime conversation or fellowship with unbelievers, by marrying with them, by going to the Idoll Temples, or the like; he concludeth with a manifest allusion to the legall ceremony, Be ye separate, and touch not the uncleane thing, or the uncleane things as the Syriacke hath it. And what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols, Vers. 16. Where the Syriack readeth thus: And what agreement hath the Temple of God with the temple of Divels? Remember, would the Apostle say, that as under the Law, the touching or eating of uncleane things made those that touched them, or did eate of them to be uncleane; so doth your fellowship with unbelievers, or your eating in their Idoll temples defile you. And as then those that had touched any unclean thing were not received into the Sanctuary, so I will not receive you into fellowship with me and my people, saith the Lord, except you be separate from the sonnes of Belial. Therefore touch not the uncleane thing, and I will receive you: Which is not spoken of receiving us into Heaven, but of receiving us into the Tabernacle of God in this life, as is manifest by Levit. 26. 11, 12. the place cited by the Apostle in the words immediately preceding. And I will set my Tabernacle among you, and my soule shall not abhorre you. And I will walke among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. And in this manner, God saith he will not receive us, except we avoid fellowship with the workers of iniquity, especially in holy things.
I shall adde fourthly, for further cleering of this point in hand, Peters vision, and the interpretation thereof Act 10. & 11. a passage cited by Erastus pag. 138, 139. while he is proving, that the thing signified by the legall uncleannesse, was onelyonly the corruption and Infidelity of nature which excludeth a sinner from heaven. The place is so farre from proving what he would, that it proveth the contrary; for it speaketh plainly of that uncleannesse which excludeth men from fellow-ship with the Saints in this life; from companying together, from eating together. And when Peter expoundeth the vision, he saith, ye know how that it is an unlawfull thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another Nation: but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean, meaning for being a Gentile and not a Iew. Act. 10. 28. you see, the not eating nor touching of unclean Beasts, Birds, and creeping things (such as Peter saw in the vision) was understood by the people of God, as forbidding their association or fellowship in this world with Heathens, or irreligious persons, and such as walked not according to the Law. And in this sence the Law was understood, not onelyonly by Peter, but generally by the Jews Act. 11. 3. Gal. 2. 12.
Nay fifthly, the legall uncleannesse, in the sence of the Jewes, did signifie not onelyonly such things as did exclude others from fellow-ship with them, but such as did exclude the Jewes themselves from the holy things. Therefore it is said Io. 18. 28. they themselves went not into the Judgement hall, lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passeover: Intimating that if they had gone into the house of an uncircumcised man, or had upon such a day gone into the Judgement Hall about a litigious action, they had been unclean, and so might not eat the Passeover. Whether it were the coming into the house of Pilate, he being a man uncircumcised; or tTostatus in Matth. 26. quaest. 48. Etiam actus quidam praeter contactum, reddebant homines immundos ad manducandum agnum, vel quaecunque sanctificat…, sicut litigare judicialiter, vel intrare in locum Judicii ad litigandum, sic dicitut Io. 18. Lud. Capelli foreign de ultimo Christi paschate p. 25. Cum itaque haec una fuerit illarum Traditionum, ut ne die festo capitali judicio vacarent, causa nulla est curex istimemus eos sine necessitate voluisse proprias constitutiones ita pedibus conculcare, & tam sole…is festi religionem prophanare. Casaubon Exerc. 16. Anno 34. num. 32. citeth a plaine passage in Maimonides declaring that they held it unlawfull to judge of capitall cases upon the perparation to the Sabbath or to a Holy-day.whether it were (which I rather think) a litigious action upon a Holy-day, which might have defiled them: this is plaine, that they thought there was a morall uncleannesse (signified by the ceremoniall uncleanesse) which might keep men from the Passeover.
The fifth animadversion shall be this: whereas Erastus holdeth pag. 106. that under the law every one was judged cleane or uncleane, according to his owne judgement and conscience, aud not according to the Priests, the Lepers onelyonly excepted; Also that when a man had committed any sinne, it was in the free will of the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased, and he was no way compelled to it. I answer, If every uncleane person except the Leper was allowed to judge and pronounce himself cleane when he pleased, then to what purpose did uL' Empereur annot. in cod. middoth. p. 40. Arcebantur autem hujusmodi contaminati, donec ca peregissent quae ad reatum caeremonialem quem contraxerant delendum facerent, atque hac ratione suis magistris morem gessissent. The unclean were not permitted to partake of the sacrifices. Iosephus de bello Iud lib. 7. c. 17.that Law serve Lev. 7. 20. 21. or that whoever was uncleane and had not purified himself, was not to be admitted to come into the Tabernacle, and if he presumed to come, he was to be cut off from the congregation Num. 19? By Erastus his principles no man should have been cut off, if he had pleaded himself not to be uncleane; and how many would doe so, if that could save them from being cut off? Is it not also plaine from Levit. 15. 15. 30. 31. that both men and women who were uncleane by their issues, (not by Leprosie) were to bring an offering to the Priest for their cleansing, otherwise were not to be accounted cleane, but lookt upon as defilers of the Tabernacle in their uncleannesse, whatever they might thinke of themselves. So women that were unclean after Child-Birth, had not power to pronounce themselves cleane, and were not free to come to the Sanctuary when they pleased, but they were first to bring a sinne offering, and the Priest was to make atonement for them Lev. 12. 6. 7. 8. There was a certaine number of dayes appointed for the cleansing, both of women after Child-Birth, and of men who had an issue, yea, when the dayes of the cleansing were full-filled, they were not free to come unto the Tabernacle, except they brought their offering for atonement. Lev. 12. 6. 7. & 15. v. 13. 14. 15. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis lib. 3. pag. 531. tells us there was a certaine definit time, till the expiring whereof, those that were uncleane by a dead body, were excluded from the Temple. Iosephus antiq. Iud. lib. 3. cap. 10. records the like, not onelyonly of Lepers, but of those that had an issue, or were defiled by the dead, that till the set time was fulfilled, all these were kept back from the congregration.
The other thing which Erastus saith, that it was left free to the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased, doth no better agree with the Word. for it was commanded that upon the very knowledge of the sinne, the trespasse offering should be brought, and the sinne confessed Levit. 4. 14. 28. & 5. 3. 4. 5.
Sixthly, whereas Erastus pag. 105. urgeth the universall Law, by which all are commanded to keep the Passeover except the uncleane, and those in a journey, therefore all others (how flagitious or scandalous soever in their lives) were bound to keep it; I answer. Who knows not, that many universalls in Scripture are to be restricted, and not to be understood as the words at first sound? as Io. 2. 10. every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, that is every Master of a feast Luk. 13. 15. doth not each one of you on the Sabbath lose his Oxe or his Asse; that is each one that hath an Oxe or an Asse; Io. 10. 8. all that ever came before me were Theeves and Robbers, meaning whoever before him did make himself the true doore, by which the sheep must enter in. So Ioel. 2. 28. I will poure out my spirit upon all flesh, yet not upon all and every one, but upon those onelyonly whom he receiveth in Covenant. Rev. 13. 8. and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the Beast) whose names are not written in the Booke of life; yet there have been many reprobates who neither worshipped the Pope nor knew him: but it is meant of all under the power of the Beast. So when all are commanded to keep the Passeover, it must be understood of all sit persons, and such as were not to be excepted. You will say the Law excepteth none, but the unclean, and those in a journey, therefore all others not excepted were to keep it; for where an exception is made from an universall Rule, that Rule is the more sure and certaine concerning all other particulars not excepted. To that I answer, Erastus himself addeth another exception, and that is, of the sick who could not be present. The Hebrewes make divers other exceptions, for they say, Women and Servants are not bound to appear: but all men are bound except the deaf, and the Dumb, and the Foole, and the little-Child and the Blinde, and the Lame, and the defiled, and the uncircumcised; and the old man, and the sick, and the tender and weake which are not able to goe up on their Feet. All these eleven are discharged &c. See Ainsworth on Exo. 23. 17. And compare this with Maimonides de Idolol. ch…o. 11. Sect. 18. where he that hearkens to Sooth-sayers, Wizards, Charmers, and the like, is said to be reckoned among Fooles and Children whose reason is imperfect. Therefore these were to be excepted as well as Fools and Children, and so were other scandalous persons, which I shall prove anon.
A Seventh Animadversion shall be this. Erastus in these Arguments of his from the Law, doth confound Sacraments with Sacrifices (as I touched in the beginning) yea, xPag. 94. Huc ipso, quod ad expiandum peccatum jubetur adferre Sacrificium, non excluditur à Sacramentis, sed ad ea invitatur; nam o…nnia haec Sacrificia etant vera Sacramenta,he argueth expressely, that whoever were admitted to expiate their Sinne by Sacrifices, were thereby admitted to Sacraments, because (saith he) all these Sacrifices were true Sacraments. So he speaketh in other places, that he might seeme to dispute the more appositely for promiscuous admission to the Sacrament of the Lord Supper. yPareus in …evit. 4. differunt Sacrificium & Sacramentum; quod Sacrificium est obedientia nostra Deoad mandatum ejus praestita, sive moralis five caerimonialis cum morali conjuncta▪ Sacramentum est Signum gratiae dei erga nos in fide à nobis susceptum.But Sacrifices and Sacraments are as different as Giving and Receiving. In Sacrifices man is the giver, God is the Receiver. In Sacraments God is the Giver, Man is the Receiver. In Sacrifices Peace is made with God. In Sacraments it is sealed and supposed to be made. They therefore that hold the Passeover was a Sacrifice (an opinion partly grounded on Deut. 16. 2. and partly taken from the Jewes dispersed, who though they observe divers paschall rites, yet they doe not kill the Paschall Lambe, nor keep the Passeover according to the Law, it being to them unlawfull to offer Sacrifices, except in the Land of Canaan) have the shorter evasion from Erastus his Argument touching the admission to the Passeover. But I have given other answers. And this much shall suffice for answer to the Erastian Arguments drawn from the Law of Moses, which some suppose to be the strongest.