Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Fourteen Arguments, to prove that scandalous and presumptuous Offenders against the morall Law (though circumcised and not being legally uncleane) were excluded from the Passeover.
THere is so much weight laid, both by Erastus himself, and by Master Prynne, upon the universall Law commanding all that were circumcised to eat the Passeover, except such as were legally uncleane, or were in a journey: that I am resolved, once for all, to demonstrate against them, that men were excluded from the Passeover, for scandalous and enormous Trespasses against the morall Law, as well as for legall uncleannesse. Peradventure it will seeme to some, that I undertake to prove a paradox, and to walke in an untrodden or obscure Path. Yet my Arguments are such, as I trust shall weigh much with intelligent men.
The first Argument shall be this. (which is hinted by Ursinus and Pareus Explic. catechit. Quest. 85. art. 2.) Whosoever by Gods appointment were excluded from the priviledges of Church Members, and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel, those were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passeover. But whosoever committed any scandalous sinne presumptuously, or with an high hand, were by Gods appointment excluded from the priviledges of Church Members and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel. Ergo. The Proposition hath this manifest reason for it. Those all who were commanded to eat the Passeover, cannot be understood to be of a larger extent then the Church of Israel: Those therefore who were not to be acknowledged or used as ChurchMembers, were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passeover. The Assumption is proved from Numb 15. 30. 31. But the soule that doth ought presumptuously (whether he be born in the land, or a stranger) the same reproacheth the Lord, and that soule shall be cut off from among his people, Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandement, that soule shall utterly be cut off: his iniquity shall be upon him.
The presumption here spoken of, is not onelyonly the presumption of heart (saith Cajetan) of which God onelyonly is Judge, but a presumption manifested in word or work, which he conceives to be intimated by the Hebrew phrase, with an high hand. Grotius understands one that either denyes that there is a God, or that the Law was given by God, or after admonition goeth on in his trespasse. But sure he mistakes the punishment, which he understands to be extrajudiciall, and that he who finds one thus sinning presumptuously, may kill him ex jure Zelotarum, as Phinehes did kill Zi…i and Cosbi.
I have spoken before of the cutting off, which I will not here resume. OnelyOnly this, such presumptuous and contumacious sinners were not to be reckoned among the people of God, nor to enjoy the priviledge of Church Members, therefore not admitted to the Passeover.
Secondly, Iosephus de bello Iud. lib. 7. cap. 17. speaking of such as were permitted to eat the Passeover, in the time of Cestius, doth thus designe them, foreign, being all of them pure and holy, not onelyonly pure from legall uncleannesse, but such as were also esteemed holy. But moreover, it is clear from Io. 18. 28, they themselves (the Jewes) went not into the Judgement Hall lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passeover: that the Jewes did so understand the Law, that morall as well as ceremoniall uncleannesse, did render them uncapable of the Passeover: for they had no such ceremoniall Law, that they who come into the Judgement Hall, should be legally or ceremonially uncleane: yet this had disabled them from eating the Passeover: for they held litigious or forensicall actions unlawfull upon a holy day as Capellus, and Casaubon (above cited) doe prove. Such a finfull and scandalous act had kept them back from the Passeover.
Thirdly, if we consult the Chaldee paraphrase upon Exod. 12. 43. it saith thus. Every Sonne of Israel, who is an Apostate, shall not eat of it. And upon the same place Master Ainsworth proves out of Maimonides that no Apostate nor Idolater was permitted to eat of the Passeover. Yea, some Israelites who were not apostates, nor idolaters, were for a seandalous action excluded from civill, how much more from Ecclesiasticall fellow-ship? See Maimon; of Idolatry cap. 9. Sect. 15. With an Israelite, who hath made defection to the worship of Idolls, it is forbidden to have traffique or commerce either in his going or returning: with another Israelite going to the Markets and Faires of Heathens, we are onelyonly forbidden to have commerce in his returning. If it was unlawfull to them, so much as to have civill commerce with an Israelite coming from the Markets of Heathens (fearing lest he had sold some what which was dedicate to Idolatry, as the reason is there given) although he was no Apostate nor Idolater: it is not easily …imaginable, that such a one was freely admitted to the Passeover.
Fourthly, an Israelite though circumcised, and not legally uncleane, yet if he either turned Idolater, or an Heretick, or an Epicurean, was no longer acknowledged to be in ChurchFellowship or Communion, therefore rendred uncapable of the Passeover. Is. Abrabanel in his Book de capite fidei, as he sheweth whom they esteemed Apostats or Hereticks cap. 12. so he also intimateth that such were excluded from the communion of their Law Cap. 3. dub. 5. none being acknowledged to be in the Communion of Israel, who did not beleeve the Articles of faith professed in the Jewish Church Cap. 6. yea, he tells us Cap. 24. (which the Talmud it self saith …it. Sanhedrin. cap. 11. Sect. 1.) that Hereticall or Epicurean Israelites were lookt upon as excluded from having portion in the world to come. And as Doctor Buxtorf sheweth out of their owne writers, they esteemed an Hereticall Israelite to be so abominable, that they did straight and without delay excommunicate him. Lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 195. How is it then imaginable that they admitted such a one to eat the Passeover? Let us heare R. Moses Maimonides himself de Idololatria cap. 2. Sect. 8. An Idolatrous Israelite is as an Heathen in all things which he doth &c. So also Israelites who are Epicures are not esteemed to be Israelites in any action of theirs &c. Now they are Epicures who aske counsell from the thoughts of their own mind, being Ignorant of those things we have spoken of, untill having transgressed the chief heads of the Law, they offend by contumacy and presumption, and say there is no sinne in this thing. But it is forbidden to speake with them or to answer them; for it is said, come not neer the door of her house Prov. 5. 8. Therefore the whorish woman that Solomon speakes of, was (in the opinion of Maimonides) such a one as was not to be esteemed as an Israelite, nay nor such as was to be spoken with, much lesse to be admitted to the Passeover. yea, Maimonides de Idal. cap. 10. Sect. 2. saith yet more. But those Israelites which forsake their religion, or become Epicures we are bidden kill them and persecute them even unto hell. How could they then admit to the passeover those whom they thought themselves obliged to persecute even unto hell?
Fifthly, those Arguments which prove an exclusion of known prophane persons from the Temple, will also prove an exclusion of known prophane persons from the Passeover: for none might eat of the Passeover, who might not also come into the Temple. That scandalous prophane persons might not come into the Temple, hath been proved already.
Sixthly, I argue from the lesser to the greater. If men were to be kept back for legall uncleannesse, much more for morall uncleannesse, this being more hatefull to God and more hurtfull to men then the other. This just consequence Grotius annot. in Luk. 6. 22. doth admit. If by the Law saith he, one that was leprous or had a filthy scab, was separated from mens company, lest he should infect others, it was no ill consequence. that (if no heavier thing) this at least should be imposed on flagitious & wicked persons, who did by the contagion of their sinfull example hurt others, & bring a reproach upon the whole congregation from which the congregation could not be made free, but by some publik detestation of that wickednes▪ thus Groti:
Seventhly, the purging out of leven from the Congregation of Israel, was a significant teaching Ceremony▪ holding forth this duty, that the Church ought to put away wicked persons from among them; for so doth the Apostle expound it 1. Cor. 5. vers. 6. 7. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe? purge out therefore the old leaven. Which relateth not onelyonly to the purging of their own hearts, but to the purging of the Church, and the putting away of that wicked person, this being the scope of the whole Chapter. Now the morall signification of that ceremony of purging out the leaven, did concerne the Church of Israel as well as the Christian Church; even as the divers washings under the Law did teach and hold forth the duty of sanctification and purity to the people of God at that time, as well as typifie the sanctification of the Christian Church.
Eighthly, though the hallowed bread might in case of necessity be lawfully given to David and his men, (the Ceremonials of the first Table yeelding to the Substantials of the second) yet Abimelech the Priest would not adventure to give it, till he understood that the young men had then kept themselves at least from women, 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5, 6. this being a part of that sanctification which was required in those who did partake of holy things, not onelyonly among the Hebrews, but among other Nations, as Hugo Grotius noteth upon the place, and upon Exod. 19. 15. Now the Shew-bread, or the twelve loaves which did shew or present the people to God, can not be supposed to be holier then the Paschall Lambe which did shew or present Christ to the people, and was a Sacrament or Seale of the covenant of grace. David also and his men in that danger of their lives had as good right to eate the Shew-bread, as any Israelite could pretend to for his eating the Passeover: yea that was a substantiall duty of the second Table, which Christ himselfe justifieth: this was a ceremoniall duty of the first Table, and grounded on a positive law. This therefore doth afford me an argument with manifold advantages. For if the Shew-bread might not be given to David and his men in their extreame necessity, unlesse they had for a certaine space before abstained from the use of their wives, otherwise lawfull: how much lesse might the Passeover be given as an holy Ordinance (which did not concern the saving of mens lives in extreame necessity) to scandalous persons living in known whordome and adultery?
Ninthly, I argue from that place, Ezech▪ 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have prophaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and prophane. Will any man say, that they were to put a difference between the holy and prophane in other Ordinances, and not in the Passeover? and why not in the Passeover, as well as in other Ordinances? If such difference was to be put in the Passeover, then how shall one imagine that no man was kept backe from the Passeover because of known prophanesse or morall uncleannesse? for what difference was put between the holy and prophane, when the prophane were received as well as the holy? Mr Coleman held that this Text reacheth not to the keeping pure of the Ordinances by any act of government, but onelyonly that the Priests did prophane the holy things in their owne practice, by eating in their uncleannesse, and also in their ministery because they taught not the children of Israel to put a difference between the cleane and the uncleane. Maledicis pag. 11. But the Text gives not the least ground to restraine this fault of the Priests here reproved, either to their personall actions, or to their doctrinall ministery. Nay the Text will reach to an act of government neglected; for the word here used to expresse the distinguishing or putting of a difference between the holy and prophane is foreign which is often used in Scripture to expresse an act of government or authority, whereby one person is separated or distinguished from another person, or one thing from another thing, as Ezra 8. 24. Then I separated twelve of the chiefe of the Priests, &c. Ezra 10. 8. all his substance should be forfeited, and himselfe separated from the congregation. Here it signifieth such a separation, as was a publique censure: why not also Ezech. 22. 26? The same word is used in the story of the division of the Land by Ioshua, Iosh. 16. 9. And the separate Cities for the children of Ephraim. It is used also to expresse Gods dividing of light from darknesse, Genes. 1. 4. also his separating of Israel from all other Nations, Levit. 20. 24. And whereas Mr Coleman did take hold of the following words in that place of Ezechiel, neither have they shewed difference between the uncleane and the cleane, as being meerly doctrinall. First, (if it were so) how will it appeare that these words are exegeticall to the former, and that the putting of difference between the holy and prophane, mentioned in the former words, was onelyonly meant of shewing the difference doctrinally? or why may we not rather understand, that the Priests are charged with neglect of duty both in Doctrine and Government. Secondly, even that latter word foreign fecerunt scire, the Septuagints render foreign: and they use foreign as Synonymous with foreign: by all these (signifying to separate or to divide) they render foreign yea the Septuagints expresse a forensicall censure or judiciall separation by foreign as Ezra 108. foreign. So that when they retalne the same word in rendering foreign in this Text of Ezekiel, they doe thereby intimate that the latter word will reach a power which was more then doctrinall, as well as the former. Which I doe the rather assert, because foreign is taken by the Septuagints (not seldome) as agreeing in signification with foreign de voluntate sua certiorem reddidit, constituit, decrevit: so that it will reach the making of others to know a thing, not onelyonly doctrinally, but by rules, Canons, Statutes, and Government. Yea foreign will reach the teaching or making men to know by censures or punishments inflicted, as Iudg. 8. 16. Gedeon tooke briars and thornes foreign Pagnin, & confregit. and he brake with these the men of Succoth. Hierome, & contrivit. The Septuagints foreign comminui…. The English Translation, and with these be taught (in the Margent made to know) the men of Succoth. For this signification of the word, namely conterere, Arias Montanus in his Hebrew Lexicon citeth Isa. 53. 3. Ezech. 19. 7. So conteri Psalm 74. 5. Prov. 10. 9. Upon this last place Mercerus tels us that the Hebrews doe not onelyonly admit this sence of that Text, but in other places also take the same word pro confringi. So that without the least violence to the Text in Ezekiel it may be thus read; They have not separated (or put difference) between the holy and prophane, neither have they broken (or divided) between the uncleane and the cleane. The latter part seemeth to charge the Priests with the admission of such as were legally uncleane; the former part, with the admission of such as were morally uncleane or prophane, to such ordinances as were appointed onelyonly for the holy and cleane.
Tenthly, Heathens or strangers who were not Proselytes of the covenant or of righteousnessè, were not permitted to eate of the Passeover. Now one that is by profession a Church member, but living in prophanesse and scandalous wickednesse, ought to be esteemed as an Heathen, Matth. 18. 17. yea as worse than an Infidell, 1 Tim. 5. 8. Hence was it that the word Heathen was used for an irreligious or wicked man, as is observed by Mathias Martinius in lexic. philol. pag. 717. 718. and as a discriminating name from believers; so Zonaras in Cone. Carthag. Can. 24. When David speaks of his persecuting wicked enemies, though Israelites, he cals them strangers and heathen, Psal. 54. 3. Psal. 59. 5. How then can it be supposed, that those who were esteemed as heathens, were admitted to all Church priviledges, as well as the best Israelites?
Eleventhly, that which was among the Jewes a sufficient cause to deny circumcision to him who desired to be admitted and received into the Jewish Church as foreign Ger ben berith, a proselyte, sonne of the covenant, or foreign Ger tsedeck, a proselyte of righteousnesse, was also a sufficient cause to deny the Passeover to a proselyte who desired to eate it. Even as now that for which we may and ought to refuse Baptisme to one that desireth it, must needs be also a cause and reason to refuse the Lords Supper to him that desireth to receive it; for he that is not fit to be baptized, is much lesse fit to receive the Lords Supper. But prophanesse or a scandalous conversation was among the Jewes a sufficient cause and reason to refuse Circumcision. Yea as Dr Buxtorf tels us in Lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 408. before the Jewes would circumcise or baptize a proselyte (for after circumcision they did baptize him) they did first examine him exactly, and prove him narrowly, whether he desired to be a proselyte, from covetousnesse, ambition, feare, the love of an Israelitish virgin, or the like sinister end. If upon examination it did appeare that he was not moved by any worldly consideration, but by affection to Religion and the glory of God, then they proceeded to set before his eyes the strictnesse of the law, and how strait and narrow a path he must walke in, telling him also of the persecutions and tribulations of Israel. If after all this triall they found him stedfast in his desires and resolutions, then they received him, he being first instructed in the Articles of their faith, and in the Commandements of the Law. How much lesse would they have circumcised a scandalous person, being so farre from any hopefull signes of sincerity, that he had the blacke markes of a worker of iniquity? And if they would not receive such a scandalous flagitious person to circumcision, how could they receive such a one (being circumcised) to the Passeover?
Twelfthly, compare Ezra 6. 21. with Ezra 10. 16, 17. First it is marked Ezra 6. 21. that such proselytes did eate the Passeover with the children of Israel, as had separated themselves unto them from the silthinesse of the Heathen of the Land, to seeke the Lord God of Israel. If those who did eate were thus qualified, it is not obscurely intimated, that those who were not thus qualified did not eate. And if no proselyte who did not separate himselfe from the filthinesse of the Heathen, was allowed to eat the Passeover, then muchlesse was an Israelite who did not separate himselfe from the silthynesse of the Heathen, allowed to eat it. I like well Beda his observation upon Ezra 10. 16, 17. Israel was purged from unlawfull marriages, and the strange wives put away; and this worke was ended against the beginning of the first monethmonth, to the intent that none defiled with unlawfull mariages might eate the Passeover, Ut ante initium mensis primi consummarentur omnes qui prophano erant connubio maculati, id est a tali scelere purgarentur, quatenus ipsum mensem primum in quo erat pascha faciendum, mundi intrarent, mundi paschalia festa peragerent &c.
Thirteenthly, I argue from the signification of the legall or ceremoniall uncleannesse, and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally uncleane. Without all controversie the keeping backe of such, was a significant ceremony. For all the legall ceremonies concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse were teaching ceremonies, and are therefore called Doctrines, Matth. 15. 9. Col. 22. 2. What was taught and signified thereby, I have before shewed, namely, that prophane ones be not admitted to fellowship with Gods people in their holy things. Yea, was not prophannesse and open wickednesse more hatefull to God than legall uncleannesse? yes saith Erastus pag. 144. because God appointed greater punishments for the former then for the latter: the greater crimes were punished by fire and sword, stoning, hanging; the smaller by mulcts, and stripes. But yet (say I) by his grounds the legall uncleannesse was more hatefull to God than prophanesse and wickednesse, in reference to fellowship in the holy things, (for that is the point) He holds that the most flagitious and prophane were commanded of God to eate the Passeover, and yet those that were onelyonly Iegally uncleane were forbidden: though the Scripture say, Prov. 15. 8. & 21. 27. that the Sacrifice of the wicked is abomination to the Lord, and the oblations of those whose hands were full of blood, his soule hated, and he could not away with them▪ Isa. 1. 11, 12, 13, 14. and when they came to his house, he told them, When ye come to appeare before me, who hath requird this at your hands, to tread my courts?
I shall not need to insist here, upon the excluding of bond servants, and those that were bought with money, from the Passeover, and the admitting onelyonly of those that were free. Which zLavater hom. 23. in Ezram.some of the Zurik Divines themselves have interpreted to signifie the exclusion of those who are servants of sinne, and of those who seeke onelyonly the things of the earth. But there is one argument more (it shall be the last) which doth convince me, that others besides the uncircumcised, and they that were legally uncleane, even those that had scandalously transgressed the morall Law, were excluded from the Passeover. The ground of my argument is that whereof I have spoken before, the law for confession of sinne and declaration of repentance; without which the Trespasse-offering was not accepted Levit. 5. 5, 6. which Law is extended to every knowne sinne that was to be expiated by Sacrifice, Numb. 5. 6, 7. When a man or woman shall commit any sinne that men commit, to doe a trespasse against the Lord (the 70 read, and despising he despise; to note rebellion or co…macy) and that person be guilty (that is be found guilty, or when the sinne shall be known, so the phrase of being guilty is explained, Levit. 4. 13, 14.) Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done. After which followes restitution to the party wronged, and atonement made by the Priest. Whence I argue thus. If the scandalous persons were not admited to the Trespasse offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of their sinne, which was knowne to have been committed by them, much lesse were they admitted to the Passeover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without such confession of their sinne. But scandalous persons were not admitted to the Trespasse-offering, (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of their sinne which was known to have been committed by them. Therefore much lesse were they admitted to the Passeover, (which was a sealing Ordinance) without such comession. This argument I did before Chap. 10. vindicate from Mr. Prynne. I will here further strengthen it, and vindicate it from another exception, which peradventure will be made against it. The proposition is certaine: for some are called to make their peace with God, who can not have any assurance sealed unto them, that their peace is made with God; But if God will not be reconciled, he will farre lesse seale reconciliation. There is no peace to the wicked saith God, how much lesse can their peace be sealed to them? The assumption is manifest from the Scriptures last cited. And if any shall say that the Law, Levit. 5. is meant onelyonly of private sinnes, and those of ignorance, which so soon as they come to knowledge, are to be confessed: I answer. 1. Its more then can be proved, that onelyonly private sinnes and those of ignorance are there meant of. Of this I have spoken elsewhere. But be it so. If some private sinnes, yea sinnes of ignorance were to be publiquely confessed when they were known, how much more were publique and scandalous sins to be publiquely confessed? 2. The Hebrews understand the Law of confession to be extended to all sinnes whatsoever that were expiated by Sacrifice, and that before atonement could be made, the sinner must make confession and say, O God I have sinned, and done perversely, I have trespassed before thee, and have done thus and thus: and lo I repent and am ashamed of my doings, and I will never doe this thing againe. 3. In all Sacrifices for atonement or expiation a man laid his hand upon the head of his offering, Levit. 1. 4. Exod. 29. 10, 15, 19. This laying on of hands was the rite used in confession of sinne, whereby a man did professe that he was worthy to be destroyed for his sinne, and that he laid his sinne upon the beast which was killed in his stead, thereby figuring that upon Christ are laid the iniquities of us all. And with the laying on of hands upon the Sacrifice, confession of sinne was made by word of mouth; which as it is the judgement of aTostatus in Levit. 1. quaest. 15. Ainsworth on Levit. 1. 4.Interpreters, so it is easily proved from Levit. 16. 21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live Goat, and confesse over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sinnes, putting them upon the head of the Goat. Whereupon I conclude, that any sinne which was expiated by Sacrifice, whether a publique or secret offence, was confessed before it was expiated. 4. The Law Numb. 5. 6. extends confession to any sinne that men commit, as hath been before observed. 5. Philippus Gamachaeus a learned Doctor of Sorbon, comment. in tertiam partem Thomae, de Paenitentiae Sacramento cap. 13. doth ingenuously acknowledge, that the foresaid law of Moses, concering confession of sinne, is no warrant for their private auricular, and Sacramentall confession, bDeinde nec Judaei confiteban… peccata omnia exactè, accuratè, sicut nos; non enim peccata interna & mentalia, sed solùm externa, quae opere ipso consummata essent, & in exteriorem actum trans…issent &c. Tertiò, nec Judaei omnia externa peccata in confessione declarabant, sed praesertim notoria & publica, ut fert opinio probabilior.because the Jewes were not by that Law bound to confesse any other sinnes, but sinfull actions or externall transgressions, nor all such, but chiefly the notorious and scandalous sinnes. If he had perceived the least colour of an argument, from that Mosaicall Law, for the necessity of confessing private sinnes to the Priest, surely he had taken hold of it, and had not quit it.