In which passage I understand by sins against God, sins known to God only. 1. Because it is forbidden to reveal those sins, therefore they were secret. 2. Because otherwise those canons shall contradict themselves, for in cap. 1 it is told us that all who brought trespass-offerings were bound to confess, by word of mouth, the sin which they had done, without which confession they got not leave to make atonement by the trespass-offering. Now trespass-offerings were for sins against God, as well as for sins against man. 3. It should otherwise contradict the law, Num. v. 6, which appointeth any sin or trespass against the Lord to be confessed. 4. Those trespasses were to be publicly 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 sins against God, which did not at all wrong his neighbour, setting aside the scandal, which I have proved before. These four reasons will prove either that the meaning of that canon must be of private sins, and not of public and scandalous sins against the first table, or otherwise that the canon is contrary to, and inconsistent with both Scripture, reason, and other rabbinical writings. From the law, Num. v., thus exampled, observe concerning the confession of sin: 1. It was for any scandalous sin of commission or omission against the first or second table; 2. It was not free and voluntary to the offender. I do not say that he was compelled to it by any external force or coercive power, but he was commanded and obliged by the law to confess. Vatablus on Num. v. 7, Fatebuntur, i.e. tanebuntur fateri, they shall confess, that is, they shall be bound to confess, and a man was not admitted with his trespass-offering except he confessed; 3. It was done by word of mouth; 4. And publicly before the congregation that were present; 5. The particular trespass was named in the confession;1 6. Sins both of ignorance and malice, when scandalous, were to be confessed; 7. The sinner was not stinted to a prescript form of words in confession, but was to enlarge his confession as his heart was enlarged; 8. In criminal 1 Hunc confessionem Hebræi vocant confessionem super peccato singulari, quia in aliis sacrificiis fiebat confessio peccatorum generalis, saith Vatablus upon the place. and capital cases, beside the civil or corporal punishment, confession was to be made, because of the scandal which had been given, which doth further appear from the Talmud itself, in sanhedrim, cap. 6, sect. 2, for that is observed in all who are put to death, that they must confess, for whoever doth confess, he hath part in the world to come; and namely it is recorded of Achan, that Joshua said to him, "My son, 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 it is collected that his confession did expiate his sin. 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 Achan's confession was not in the sanctuary, nor at a trespassoffering; but I make mention of it because Erastus holdeth,1 that under the law confession was only required in such cases where the sin was not criminal or capital; which is confuted by the afore-mentioned passages in Maimonides and the Talmud itself, proving that whether the sin was expiated by sacrifice or by death, it was always to be confessed; from the same example of Achan doth P. Galatinus, lib. 10, cap. 3, prove that declaration of repentance was to be made by word of mouth, and that the sin was to be particularly confessed, which he further proveth by another rabbinical pas sage. 2 In the fourth place, John ix. 24 seemeth to hold forth a judicial public confession of sin 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 far from confessing Christ, as to confess sin and wicked collusion, "Give God the praise (say they), we know that this man is a sinner,' which is to be expounded by Josh, vii. 19, "Give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession." Fifthly, as the Jews had an excommunication, so they had an absolution, and that which intervened was confession, and decla 1 Confirm. Thes. p. 106, 113. 2 Ex co quo quod in libro Jomo, id est, dierum, in capite, jam hakippurim, id est, dies propitiationum, ita scribitur. Dixit Rab. Hunna: Omnis qui transgressione transgressus est necesse est ut singulatim exprimat peccatum. ration of repentance. And hence came the Arabic and nadam, he hath repented, nadim, a penitent, the niddui made the nadim; for when a man was excommunicated by the lesser excommunicacation, the consistory1 waited first thirty days, and then other thirty days, and as some think (the third time) thirty days, 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 and impenitent, then they proceeded to the greater excommunication, which doth prove a public confession, at least in the case of the excommunicated. Sixthly, we find a public penitential confession, Ezra x. 10, 11: "And Ezra 'the priest stood up and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives to increase the trespass of Israel; now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of of your fathers, and do his pleasure, and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives." Mark here, the forsaking of the sin could not suffice without confessing the sin; all Israel had sworn and covenanted to do the thing, to put away the strange wives, ver. 5, but Ezra the priest tells them, they must also make confession of their sin; confession of their former trespass must be joined with reformation for the future: all which the people promise to do as Ezra had said, ver. 12. But what was this confession, was it only a private confession to God alone, or was it only a general confession made by the whole congregation of Israel at a solemn fast and humiliation? Nay, that there was a third sort of confession, differing from both these, appeareth by ver. 13, "Neither is this a work of one day, or two, for we are many that have transgressed in this thing;" yea, three months are spent in the business, ver. 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 certain chief 1 Seld. de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 8. Pro diversitate peccati et peccantis moribus, nunc citius nunc serius sequebatur absolutio. Sed ut plurimum excommunicatio fiebat in diem tricesimum, etc. Intra hoc tempus expectabat forum ut ad Bonam rediret. mentem, resipisceret, et quæ juberent ipsi præstaret, etc. Post triginta dierum contumaciam, idem tempus semel iterabatur, etc. At vero si neque intra id spatii pænitens absolutionem peteret, ra Cherem seu anathemate ferriebatur. 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 offered a ram of the flock for their trespass; with which trespass-offering confession was ever joined, as hath been before shewed from the law. Seventhly, Mr Hildersham, of worthy memory, in his thirty-fourth lecture upon Psal. li., draweth an argument from David's example for the public confession of a scandalous sin before the church. He made, saith he, public confession of his sin to the congregation, and church of God, for we see in the title of this psalm, 1. That he committed this psalm (that containeth the acknowledgment of his sin, and profession of his repentance) to the chief musician to be published in the sanctuary and temple; 2. That in this publication of his repentance he hideth not from the church his sin, nor cloaketh it at all, but expresseth in particular the special sin, &c. Add hereunto, this public confession was made after ministerial conviction by Nathan, who did convince David of the greatness of that scandalous sin, in which he had then continued impenitent near a year or thereabout. The doctrine which Mr Hildersham draweth from David's example is this, "That they whose sins God hath detected and brought to light, whose sins are public and notorious, scandalous and offensive to the congregations where they live, ought to be willing to confess their sins publicly, to make their repentance as public and notorious as their sin is." He addeth in his explanation, "When they shall be required to do it by the discipline of the church." Mark one of his applications. (which is the subject of the thirty-seventh lecture): "The second sort that are to be reproved by this doctrine, are such as having authority to enjoin public repentance to scandalous sinners, for the satisfying of the congregation, when they are detected and presented unto them, refuse or neglect to do it." And here he complaineth, that the public acknowledgment of scandalous sins 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), straitly 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 sin notorious without repentance. And The Book of Common Prayer, in the rubric before the communion, commandeth, that if any be an open and notorious evil liver, so that the congregation by him is offended, the minister shall call him, and advertise him in anywise not to presume to the Lord's 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 laws and discipline of our church require that open and scandalous sinners should do open and public repentance, yea, give power to the minister to repel and keep back such from the communion that refuse to do it." Where it may be observed by the way, that the power of elderships for suspending scandalous sons (not excommunicated) from the sacrament, now so much contended against by Mr Prynne, is but the same power which was granted by authority to the ministry even in the prelatical times; and he hath upon the matter endeavoured to bring the consciences of a whole eldership into a greater servitude under this present reformation, than the conscience of a single minister was formerly brought under by law in this particular. per Eighthly, Mr Hildersham, ibid. lect. 34, argueth not only à pari but à 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 own words are very well worth the transcribing: "This is evident by those two laws, Lev. vi. 5, 6, and Num. v. 6, 8, where God plainly taught his people, that their trespass-offering which they brought to him to seek pardon of any sin 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, lest we should think those laws concerned the Jews only, our Saviour himself giveth this in charge, Matt. v. 23, 24, 'If thou bringest thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest 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 half said, Josh. xxii. 'The Lord God of gods he knoweth, and Israel he shall know.""" Thus Mr Hildersham. CHAPTER IX. WHETHER IN THE JEWISH CHURCH THERE WAS ANY SUSPENSION OR EXCLUSION OF PROFANE, SCANDALOUS, NOTORIOUS SINNERS, FROM PARTAKING IN THE PUBLIC ORDINANCES WITH THE REST OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN THE TEMPLE. Erastus and his followers hold, that among the Jews none were excluded from any public ordinance in the temple for moral uncleanness, that is, for a profane scandalous conversation, but only for legal or ceremonial uncleanness. The like Mr Prynne saith of the passover; and, of the temple, he holds that even those who were, for their offences, cast out of the synagogues, were yet free to come, and did come, to the temple. I shall particularly make answer both to Erastus and to Mr Prynne in this point, when they shall fall in my way afterward. I shall here, more generally, endeavour to rectify their great mistake, and to prove an exclusion from the temple and public ordinances, for pubile and scandalous offences in life and conversation, or for moral as well as ceremonial uncleanness. First, I shall prove it ex ore duorum from the testimonies of two of the most famous witnesses of the Jews themselves, Philo and Josephus. Philo, lib. de Victimas Offerentibus,1 is so full and plain, as if he had purposely written that book to record the exclusion of scandalous persons from communion with the church of Israel in the temple. He presseth all along the necessity of holiness and purity in those who bring sacrifices, and tells us that their law did exclude from their holy assemblies meretricious persons, despisers of God, and all that were known to be impious and profane, as well as those who were legally unclean. 1 The same thing may be confirmed out of Josephus, who records that one Simon, a doctor of the law, did, in the absence of king Agrippa, accuse him to the people as an impure unworthy man, who ought not to be suffered to enter into the temple. Josephus gives a good testimony to Agrippa, that he was unjustly accused. Agrippa himself sends for Simon, and asks him what he had ever done, which deserved such an accusation. But neither Agrippa himself, nor Josephus, saith one syllable to this purpose, that the excluding of a man from the temple for profaneness and impiety was a new arbitrary censure, contrary to the law or custom of the Jews, which (no doubt) they had done, if there had been any ground for them to say so. Their very pleading of innocency, and no more, tacitly confirmeth that, if guilty, it had been just to exclude temque (κοινονίας διὲ καὶ φιλανθρωπιας) maxime docet lex nostra, utrique virtuti honorem habet meritum, neminem deplorare malum ad eas admittens, sed quam longissime in rem malam ablegans. from the temple. Again, de Bello Jud. lib. 4, cap. 5, Josephus records that Ananias, the high priest (whom, cap. 7, he highly commends for good government), had an oration to the Jews against the rat, the zealots, who, under colour of that name which they took to themselves, committed a great deal of injustice and violence. He said with tears, "I had rather die than see the house of God filled τοσούτοις ἄγεσι with such crimes (or criminal persons), kai ràs ἀβάτους καὶ ἁγίας χώρας ποσί μιαιφόνων, στενοχωρουμένας, and the forbidden and holy places to be haunted and trode with the feet of those who are polluted with murders,"-speaking of those zealots. What can be more plain? rò ayos, a piacular crime, was a cause of keeping back from the temple (even as also among the heathens, some were for piacular crimes interdicted the sacrifices); paipovia, blood-guiltiness, defilement by murder, was also a cause of exclusion from the temple, and to such the temple was a place inaccessible and forbidden. I add a testimony of J. Scaliger, Elench. Trihares. Nic. Terar., cap. 28, where, speaking of those Essæans who did not observe the Mosaical rites, he saith, Itaque non mirum, si tanquam ežayeis et piaculares aditu templi prohibebantur. The like Constantinus L'Empereur, Annot. in Cod. Middoth, p. 44, proves from another passage in Josephus: Viri autem qui non per omnia casti essent ab interiori aula prohibebantur. Where L'Empereur addeth, Cum igitur sciret concionibus (i ras ixxλnoiais) In spacii descripti partem interiorem non admisceri multos improbos, quod se posse in turba latere autument, ut id caveret in posterum, omnes indignos a sacro cætu edicto prohibint (goavsígy πάντας τούς ἀναξίους ἱερου συλλόγου), incipiens a semiviris obscæno morbo laborantibus, qui naturæ monetam adulterantes, in impudicatum mulierum affectum et formam sponte degenerant. Spadones item et castratos arcet, etc. Pariter repellit non tantum scorta, sed et natos e prostitutis, contactos materno dedecore propter natales adulterinos, etc. Alii vero quasi contendant hos in impietatis stadio post se relinquere, addunt amplius, ut non solum ideas, sed et deum esse negent. Et post. Proinde omnes hi merito pelluntur a sacris cætibus πάντας εικότως ἱεροῦ, συλλόγου ἐλαύνει). admittebant quoque hæreticum, which, he Quis enim dicat (saith Hen. Vorstius, Anisaith, may be proved out of the Talmud. mad. in Pirke, p. 169) apostatam, blasphemum, aliaque sacra capita intra templum fuisse admissa. Of the exclusion of excommunicate persons I have before spoken, following their opinion who hold, that such as were excommunicate by the lesser excommunication, or niddui, had liberty to come into (the temple, yet so that they were to enter in at the gate of the mourners, and were not seen in the temple but as penitents; but such as were excommunicated by the greater excommunication, or cherem, were not suffered to come into the temple, nor so much as into any assembly of ten men; and they might neither teach nor be taught. Grotius holds that such as were excommunicated by niddui, or the lesser excommunication, had power to come to the temple, but no other 1 Antiq., lib. 19, cap. 7, Libenter et continuo degebat (Agrippa) Hierosolymis, institutorum ac rituum patriæ servator religiosissimus, purus enim erat a contaminamentis omnibus, nec ulla dies ei præteribat absque sacrificio. Accidit aliquando ut quidam Hierosolymita legis peritus, nomine Simon, advocata concione, per regis absentiam, agentis tum Cæsaræ, criminaretur illum ut impurum et arcendum templi aditu, quod non nisi dignis pateat. Id ubi præfectus urbis illi significavit per literas, confes tim accersivit hominem, etc. Die mihi inquit, quid tibi non probatur ex his quæ facimus. wise than heathens, and that they might not come into the court of Israel;1 which is an answer to Mr Prynne's objection, that such as were cast out of the synagogue came to the temple. There are but two places in the New Testament which seem at first to make much against that which I have said. One is, Luke xviii., concerning the Publican's going up to the temple to pray as well as the Pharisee; the other is John viii., concerning the woman taken in adultery, whom they brought before Christ in the temple. I remember Erastus objecteth them both.2 come. To the first I answer, It rather confirmeth than confuteth what I have said; for 1. The text saith, ver. 13, “The Publican stood afar off," the Pharisee not so. Grotius upon the place, ver. 11, noteth, that the Pharisee's fault was not in this particular, that he came farther into the temple than the Publican;3 for the custom was such, that the Publicans were to stand in the court of the Gentiles, the Pharisees in the court of Israel. Camer. Myroth. in Luke xviii., is also of opinion that the Publican stood in the court of the Gentiles, or in that first court into which Josephus, lib. 2, contra Appion., saith, that all, even heathens, might 2. And though our opposites could prove that the Publican came into the court of Israel (which they never will be able to do), yet this place helps them not at all, unless they can prove that this was a scandalous and profane Publican. It is certain that divers of the Publicans were religious and devout men, and that this was one of them, we may more than conjecturally know, by the Pharisee's own words; for when he hath thanked God that he is not as other men, adulterers, unjust, extortioners, he addeth with a disjunction, or even as this Publican; thus preferring himself not only to the infamous and scandalous Publicans, but even to this devout Publican. More of this place afterward, in the debate of Matt. xviii. To the other objection from John viii. 2, 3, 1 Annot. in Luke vi. 22. Qui hac nota (minoris Qoçoμo sive niddui) inusti erant, stante templo, accedebant ad templum, ut ex Hebræis vir doctus notavit: sed haud dubie consistebant extra τόν περίCaroy qui distinguebat innoùs ab Israelitis. Nam i ἀφορισμένοι interim ἐθνικῶν loco habebantur. 2 Confirm. Thes., lib. 1, cap. 2, p. 99, and elsewhere. 3 Nam mos id ferebat ut Publicani in atrio Gentilium, Pharisæi in atrio Israelitarum starent, nec quicquam in eo erat insolitum aut Pharisæo imputandum. where it is said that the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery into the temple, and set her before Christ, First, I answer with Constantinus L'Empereur,1 Annot. in Cod. Middoth, cap. 2, p. 45, By the temple in that place we are to understand the intermurale, the outer court, or court of the Gentiles, which was without the court of Israel, which outer court (saith he) both the evangelists and Josephus call by the name of iepòv the temple; yea, the whole mountain of the temple, even comprehending that part of it which was without the intermurale, had the name of the temple, as Mr Selden noteth, de Jure Nat. et Gent., lib. 3, cap. 6, p. 298; and lib. 4, cap. 5, he expounds that of the money-changers in the temple, to be meant of the court of the Gentiles. This answer doth the better agree to John viii., because ver. 2 tells us, it was in the place where "all the people came unto Jesus, and he taught them." Now it is certain that both Christ and his apostles did often teach the people in the court of the Gentiles, and in Solomon's porch, which was without the court of Israel, in the intermurale, that all might have the better occasion of hearing the gospel, even they who were not permitted to enter into the court of Israel. Wherefore, since the text tells us, that when the Pharisees brought the woman to Christ, he was teaching in such a place, where all the people had access to hear him, this agreeth better to the intermurale than to the court of Israel. Secondly, I answer, That woman did not come as a privileged person, free to come and worship in the court of Israel with the church of Israel; but she is brought as an accused person, that, in the most public and shameful manner, she might be sentenced and condemned, and made vile before all the people; so that it was in her pœna non privilegium. The sanhedrim also did sit in the temple, so that such as were to be examined and judged, must be brought to that place where the sanhedrim was, which sat in that part of the temple that was called Gazith. This might be the occasion of bringing some to the temple as parties to be 2 1 Sane cum servator in templo docuisse, cap. 8. Joh. legitur, quo mulierem deprehensam Pharisæi ipsi adduxerunt; alium locum præter hunc qui erat extra atria, designati credere nequeo: quandoquidem e Josepho observatum jam suit, impuris atria adire fas non fuisse. 2 P. Cuneus de Repub. Hebr., lib. 1, cap. 12. Concilii magni sedes insipso Sanctuario fuit. |