Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne, concerning the exclusion of prophane scandalous persons from the passeover.
THat which Master Prynne in his Vindication pag. 15, 16. pleadeth for his opinion, from the Law of the passeover, may be (as I conceive) with no great difficulty answered, and I shall doe it very shortly, (being to insist further in answering Erastus, who said much more for that point, which deserveth …n answer) First, in answer to our argument from the keeping back of the unclean. Num. 9. he saith, that all circumcised persons whatsoever, had a right to eat the passeover, &c. being bound to eat the passeover in its season, except in cases of necessity, disability, by reason of a journey, or of legall uncleannesse onelyonly, not spirituall, as is cleer by Exo. 12. 3. 43. to 50. Num. 9. 1. to 15. Deut. 16. 16, 17. Ezra. 6. 19, 20, 21. 2 Kings 23. 21, 27, 2. Chron. 35. 6, 7. 13. 17. 18. where we read that all the people and all the males that were present received the passeover, not one of them being excluded from eating it.
Answ. 1. If it was so, doth not this make as much against himselfe as against us, unlesse he will say, that the Analogy must hold so farre, that all Baptized persons whatsoever, none excepted (if it be not in cases of necessity or disability) how scand…lous, impenitent, and obstinate soever they be, ought to be admitted to the Lords Table? so there shall be no excommunication at all (which yet himselfe granteth) for if any Baptized person, (though such as Master Prynne himselfe would have to be excommunicated) shall be shut out from the Church and from all publike Ordinances, and so from the Lords Supper, because of his obstinacy and continuance in some foule scandall, after previous admonitions, in so doing, we shall, by his principles, doe contrary to the Law of the passeover, in the point of Analogy. 2. The Texts cited by him, prove that men were debarred for legall uncleannesse, but there is not one of them which will prove that men were debarred onelyonly for legall uncleannesse, and no man for morall uncleannesse. Yea, one of those Texts. Ezra. 6. 21. tells us that those who were admitted to the passeover, were such as had separated themselves from the silthynesse of the heathen of the Land, to seeke the Lord God of Israel. 3. That morall uncleannesse, I meane known prophannesse or scandalous sinnes, did render men uncapable of eating the passeover I shall prove anone by divers arguments, unto which I remit Master Prynne.
That which hee objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. I am to answer also distinctly by it selfe. His second reply is, that those who were legally uncleane at the day appointed for the passeover, so as they could not then receive it, were yet peremptorily enjoyned to eat it the 14. day of the second monethmonth, &c. Num. 9. 11. 12. he must not be suspended from it above one monethmonth. Answ. The Scripture cited proves no such thing, except upon supposition that they be clean the 14. day of the following monethmonth. And what if any of them were in the second monethmonth also uncleane, by the touch of a deadbody or otherwise? Were they not kept off in the second monethmonth, as well as in the first? Is it not plainly said of the second passeover vers. 12. (the very pla…e cited by himselfe) according to all the Ordinances of the passeover they shall keep it? and one of those Ordinances was the keeping back the uncleane.
Thirdly, he saith, that he who was legally uncleane, was kept back neither by the Priest nor Magistrate, but by those of the same Family as vers. 6, 7. imports. And the true reason (saith he) in this Text why his uncleannesse did seclude him from eating the passeover, was because it quite excluded him out of the camp for a time, (not Tabernacle or Temple) and so by necessary consequence from the house wherein he was to eat the passeover, &c. and by like reason it debarred him from all other Ordinances.
Answ. 1 The Text Num. 9 6, 7. tells us the unclean were kept back; but by whom they were kept back, it tells not. That it was neither left free to the unclean person to eat of the passeover, nor to the Family to admit him, but that there was an authoritative restraint, I prove by this argument. He that was uncleane and before his cleasing did eat of the flesh of the Peace-offerings was cut off from among his people Lev. 7. 20. 21, Therefore he that in his uncleannesse, did eat the passeover, was to be cut off also. No man will say that there was any lesse punishment intended for the pollution of the passeover, than for the pollution of Peace-offerings. And if the uncleane were not permitted, under the Law, to eat of the Flesh of the Sacrifices, or if they did they were cut off; shall not as great care be had to keep the body of Jesus Christ (which was signified by the flesh of the sacrifices) and the bloud of the Covenant, from being trod under Foot by Dogges and Swine?
2. Neither is there any such reason in that Text Num. 9. as the excluding quite out of the camp, those who were uncleane by a dead body, and so by consequence from the passeover. Nay the Text rather intimateth, that they were in the camp; for they came before Moses and Aaron on that day, when the passeover was kept, and said, We are defiled by the dead body of a man, Wherefore are we kept back. vers. 6. 7. I hope Moses and Aaron were not without the camp. I knew the Lepers and some other uncleane persons were put out of the camp; but there is not one of the Texts cited by him which gives the least shadow of reason to prove that the uncleane by the dead body of a man were quite excluded out of the Camp, except Num. 5. 2. And if he will beleive the Hebrew Doctors, and others upon that place, there were three Camps, the Camp of Israel, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of Divine Majesty; fVatablus in Num. 5. 2. T…ia secundum Hebraeos castra erant. Castra nempe Dei, id est Tabernaculum: Castra levitarum, & castra Israel. Leprosi ab omnibus arcebantur: Impuri per fluxum à primis duobus excludebantur. Pollutus vero propter cadaver solum à tabernaculo Ecclesiae arcebatur. Godwyn in his Moses and Aarom lib. 5. cap. 2. cit…th Paulus fagius for the same thing. See also Mr. Wee…se his Christian Synagogue pag. 135. 136.The uncleane by the dead were free (say they) to be in the first two Camps, and were onelyonly excluded from the third. However, its agreed, that some uncleane persons were excluded from the Sanctuary, who were not excluded from the camp of the Chidren of Israel, as is observed by Tostatus in Lev. 12. Quaest. 21. Menochius in Num. 5. 2. the English Annotations on Num. 5. 2. and others. And if Master Prynne can prove, that those uncleane persons who were excluded from the Sanctuary, were not excluded from the Passeover, let him try it. That this thing may be yet better understood, let us observe with Tostatus in Levit. 22. Quest. 7. a threefold separation of the uncleane under the Law: some were separate onelyonly from the Sanctuary and the holy things; for he that had but touched a man or a woman, who had an issue, or had touched the Bed, Clothes, or any thing else, which had been under him or her, was not permitted to come unto the Tabernacle, till he was cleansed Lev. 15. Others were separated both from the holy things, and from the company or society of their Neighbours, yet not cast out of the camp: for this he gives the case of women having an issue of blood, who were put apart seven dayes Lev. 15. and for the same space a woman after the birth of a male Child, was uncleane, so farre as to be kept apart from human society, but she did continue uncleane three and thirty dayes longer, as to the Sanctuary and hallowed things, during which space of the three and thirty dayes, she was not separated from company and society, as in the first seven dayes, onelyonly she was forbidden to touch any hallowed thing, or to come into the Sanctuary. There was a third sort separated not onelyonly from the Sanctuary, and from humane society, but also cast out of the camp, which was the case of Lepers. I conclude, all uncleane persons whatsoever were excluded from the Tabernacle Lev. 15. 31. and from eating of the flesh of the Sacrifices Lev. 7. 20. 21. Neither might any of the Sonnes of Aaron having his uncleannesse upon him eat of the holy things, though it was his Food Lev. 22. v. 2. to 7. in which places cutting off is appointed to be the punishment, not for unclean persons their being in the camp, but for their coming to the Tabernacle, or for their eating of the holy things; and accordingly it is said 2 Chro. 23. 19. that Ichojada set the Porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in. But we never read that none which was uncleane in any thing, was permitted to enter in at the Gates of Ierusalem, or to converse among the people.
3 Whereas Master Prynne thinkes that uncleane persons were excluded from all Ordinances, as well as from the Passeover, first, what saith he to that which Erastus holdeth and (as he thinkes) grounded upon Scripture, namely that all uncleane persons as well as others, were admitted to the feast of expiation? Next, what saith he to that which is observed by Master Selden and divers others, namely, that some uncleane persons might come not onelyonly to the mountaine of the house of the Lord, but might also enter into the intermurale? Into that utmost Court the heathens might come and pray; & so might the Israelites that were not legally cleane saith gDe tempfabrie. p. 15. in quod (at…ium) exte…i, id est Gentes, quae Israolis nomen non prosit erentur, conve nire ad orandum poss…nt: & Isr…elitae etiam qui caeremoniali ritu puri non essent:Arias Montanus.
The fourth and fifth Answers which Mr. Prynne gives that there is no such warrant for keeping back scandalous persons from the Lords Table, as there was for keeping back the uncleane from the Passeover; and that suspension for legall uncleannesse: proves not suspension for morall uncleannesse, These I say doe but petere principium, and therefore to be passedover, because he takes for granted what is in controversie.
I shall therefore proceed to that which he addeth in the next place, in answer to an argument of mine in my controversall fast Sermon, (as he miscalleth it) The argument as I did propound it, was this. Those scandalous sinners that were not admitted to offer a trespasse offering (which was reconciling ordinance) without confession of sinne, and Declaration of their Repentance for the same, were much lesse admitted to the Passeover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without confession of known and scandalous sins, if they had committed any such. But circumcised persons, if they were scandalous sinners, were not admitted to offer a trespasse offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of sinne and Declaration of their Repentance for the same Lev. 5. 5. 6. Ergo Mr Prynne answereth pag. 17. its a meer non-sequitur. 1. Because contradicted (as he thinks) by 1 Cor. 10. which is a contrarious argument, and I shall answer it in the proper place. 2. He saith that examination of the Conscience, Repentance, and Confession, are no where required of such as did eate the Passeover, it being onelyonly a commemoration of Gods mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne, when he slew the Egyptians: but there being no remission without confession, it was necessary that those who came to offer a trespasse-offering for some particular sinnes, should confesse those very sinnes, yet not to the Priest, but to God alone.
Answ. 1. If examination of the Conscience, Repentance, and confession, were not required in those that did eate the Passeover, and if there might be a worthy eating of it without this (as he plainly intimateth when he saith that this is no where required in Scripture, of such as did eat the Passeover, though all circumstances and necessaries for the worthy eating of it, he most punctually enumerated) And if the Passeover was but onelyonly a commemoration of Gods infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne, as he saith, (which was but a temporall mercy) Then he must needs say, either that in the Sacrament of the Passeover, or confirmation of faith, increase of grace, nor spirituall mercy was given, or that in that Sacrament this grace (yea, by his Principles, conversion and regeneration it selfe) was conferred ex opere operato. And he must either say the like of the Lords Supper, or otherwise hold that the Sacraments of the new Testament differ from those of the old, specifically; and that the Passeover did not seale the same covenant of grace for the substance, which is now sealed by the Lords Supper.
2 What was the meaning of the bitter Herbs, with which the Passeover was commanded to be eaten? Were not the people of God thereby taught the necessity of Repentance in that very action? And what means it that at Hezekiahs Passeover, the people are called to turne againe unto the Lord, 2 Chron. 30. 6. that the Priests and the Levites were ashamed and sanctified themselves, vers. 15. & offered Peace-offerings made confession to the Lord God of their fathers, vers. 22. where I understand confession of sinne, according to the Law, which appointed confession of sinne to be made with the Peace offerings, which confession was signified by laying hands upon the head of the offering Lev. 3. 2. 8. 13. compared with Lev. 16. 21. and so we find Repentance joyned with peace offerings. Iudg. 20. 26. finally read we not of the peoples preparing of their heart to seeke God at the Passeover 2 Chro. 30. 19. which as it could not be without Repentance and examination of their consciences, so Hezekiah mentioneth it, as that without which the peoples eating of the Passeover, could not have been in any wise accepted.
3. That it was not a private confession to God alone, but a publike penitentiall confession in the Temple, and before the Priests, I have before Chap. 8. made it to appear both out of the Text, and out of Philo the Iew. This I adde here. The Confession of the sin was made in the place of offering the trespasse offering, before the Priest, at the laying on of hands between the horns of the beast, therefore it was not made in secret to God onelyonly: which doth further appear, by the …awes concerning such and such Sacrifices, for such and such sinnes, Lev. 5. and by the restitution which was also joyned with the confession Num. 5. 7. And it is also cleare from the Jewish hUide edit. lutin. Cantabr. a…no. 1631. pag. 5. Eximia laus est paenitentiam agenti, ut publicè confiteatur, iniquitat…s suat toti caetui indicans, & delicta q…ae in proximum admisit, …liis … hunc in modum, …evera pecca…i in N. N. (vitum nominans) & haec & illa seci … Ecce autem me vobis nunc conv…rtor & me facti paenitet. Q…i verò prae superbia non i…dicat, sed abscondit iniquitates suas, illi perfecta non est paenitentia, Quia dicitu…, Qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur.Canones paenitentiae cap. 1. & 2. where we find confession of …inne to be made both by word of mouth, and publikely before the congregation.
4. In stead of making my argument a non-sequitur, he makes it a clarè-sequitur: for the first part of it not being taken off, but rather granted by him, because (as he saith truly) without confession of sin there is no remission of it, hence the other part must needs follow: for if it was in vaine so much as to sue for pardon in a reconciling Ordinance, when the sinne was not confessed; how much more had it been a taking in vaine of the name of God, & a prophaning of a sealing Ordinance, to seale up pardon to a scandalous sinner, who had not so much as confessed his scandalous sin, but continued in manifest impetency?
But we will trie whether his third and last answer can relieve him. It is this: That every particular communicant before he comes to receive the Sacrament, makes a publike confession of his sinnes to God with the rest of the congregation, and in words at least, voweth newnesse of life for the future, there being no communicant that ever I heard of (saith he) so desperatly wicked and atheisticall, as not to professe heartily sorrow for all his forepast sinnes, or to avow impenitent continuance in them when he came to the Lords Table. Behold, what a latitude? If the vilest sinner practically persevering in a scandalous sinne, shall but joyne with, and not gainsay the publique confession of the whole congregation (wherein the best men doe and ought to joyne) and in words promise newnesse of life (and who will not promise to endeavour to live better?) nay if he have but so much wit, as not to professe or avow impenitency: then Mr. Prynne alloweth his admission to the Sacrament. But is this the confession that my argument did prove? nothing like it. It was a particular confession of such a sinne by name, Levit. 5. 5. and it shall he when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing: and with the confession there was a reall amendment. For instance, a recompencing of the trespasse with the principall, and the addition of a fifth part, when the case did so require, Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done, and he shall recompence his trespasse, &c. This is that my argument did drive at, and it still stands in force to conclude that the confession of the particular sinne which hath given publique scandall, iR. Mosis canones panitentiae cap. 2. Quicunque verbis confitetur, & …x corde non statuit peccacum derelinquere: ecce hic ei similis est qui lavat, & manu reptile immundum retinet: Neque enim quicquam prodest lavatio, donec reptile abjecerit. Et hoc illud est quod a Sapiente illo dicitur. Qui autem confessus fuerit & reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Quin & oportet ut pecca…um speciatim recenseat: Quia dicitur: Obsecro domine, peccavit populus iste peccatum maximum seceruntque sibi deos anreos.together with the forsaking of it externally and in practice, is so necessary, that without these the admission of a scandalous sinner is a most horrible prophanation of the Sacrament.
But now finding the argument concerning the Passeover and legall uncleannesse to have been more fully prosecuted by Erastus than it is by Mr. Prynne, I doe resolve to trace it hard at the heeles whithersoever it goeth.