the Egyptians, but there being no remission without confession, it was necessary that those who came to offer a trespass-offering for some particular sins should confess those very sins, yet not to the priest, but to God alone.

Ans. 1. If examination of the conscience, repentance and confession, were not required in those that did eat the passover, and if there might be a worthy eating of it without this (as he plainly intimateth when he saith, "that this is nowhere required in Scripture of such as did eat the passover, though all circumstances and necessaries for the worthy eating of it be most punctually enumerated"), and if the passover was "but only a commemoration of God's infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites' first-born," as he saith (which was but a temporal mercy), then he must needs say, either that in the sacrament of the passover, or confirmation of faith, no increase of grace, nor spiritual mercy was given, or that in that sacrament this grace (yea, by his principles, conversion and regeneration itself) was conferred ex opere operato. And he must either say the like of the Lord's supper, or otherwise hold that the sacraments of the New Testament differ from those of the old, specially; and that the passover did not seal the same covenant of grace for the substance which is now sealed by the Lord's supper.

2. What was the meaning of the bitter herbs with which the passover 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 Hezekiah's passover the people are called to turn again unto the Lord, 2 Chron. xxx. 6, that the priests and the Levites were ashamed and sanctified themselves, ver. 15, and offered peace-offerings, and made "confession to the Lord God of their fathers?" ver. 22; where I understand confession of sin according to the law, which appointed confession of sin to be made with the peace-offerings, which confession was signified by laying hands upon the head of the offering, Lev. iii. 2, 8, 13, compared with Lev. xvi. 21, and so we find repentance joined with peace-offerings, Judg. xx. 26. Finally, read we not of the people's preparing of their heart to seek God at the passover, 2 Chron. xxx. 19, which as it could not be without repentance and examination of their consciences, so Hezekiah mentioneth it as that without which the

people's eating of the passover could not have been in anywise accepted.

3. That it was not a private confession to God alone, but a public penitential 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 Jew. This I add here: The confession of the sin was made in the place of offering the trespass-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 only, which doth further appear by the laws concerning such and such sacrifices, for such and such sins, Lev. v., and by the restitution which was also joined with the confession, Num. v. 7. And it is also clear from the Jewish Canones Pænitentiæ, cap. 1, 2, where we find confession of sin to be made both by word of mouth and publicly before the congregation.

4. Instead of making my argument a nonsequitur 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 vain so much as to sue for pardon in a reconciling ordinance, when the sin was not confessed, how much more had it been a taking in vain of the name of God, and a profaning of a sealing ordinance, to seal up pardon to a scandalous sinner who had not so much as confessed his scandalous sin, but continued in manifest impenitency.

But we will try 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 public confession of his sins to God, with the rest of the congregation, and, in words at least, voweth newness of life for the future ; there being no communicant that ever I heard of (saith he) so desperately wicked and atheistical, as not to profess heartily sorrow for all his forepast sins, or to avow impenitent continuance in them when he came to

1 Vide edit. Latin. Cantabr., anno 1631, p. 5. Eximia laus est pænitentiam agenti, ut publice confiteatur, iniquitates suas toti cætui indicans, et delicta quæ in proximum admisit, aliis aperiens hunc in modum, Revera Peccavi in N. N. (virum nominans) et hæc et illa feci: ecce autem me vobis nunc convertor et me facti pænitet. Qui vero præ superbia non indicat, sed abscondit iniquitates suas, illi perfecta non est pænitentia, Quia dicitur, Qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur.

the Lord's table." Behold, what a latitude! If the vilest sinner, practically persevering in a scandalous sin, shall but join with, and not gainsay, the public confession of the whole congregation (wherein the best men do and ought to join), and in words promise newness of life (and who will not promise to endeavour to live better), nay, if he have so much wit as not to profess 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 sin by name; Lev. v. 5, " And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing;" and with the confession there was a real amendment. For instance, a recompensing of the trespass with the principal, and the addition of a fifth part when the case did so require; Num. v. 7, "Then they shall confess their sin which they have done, and he shall recompense his trespass," &c. This is that my argument did drive at, and it still stands in force to conclude that the confession of the particular sin which hath given public scandal, 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 profanation of the sacrament.

But now finding the argument concerning the passover and legal uncleanness to have been more fully prosecuted by Erastus than it is by Mr Prynne, I do resolve to trace it hard at the heels whithersoever it goeth.

CHAPTER XI.

A CONFUTATION OF THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS OF ERASTUS, NAMELY, THOSE DRAWN FROM THE LAW OF MOSES.

Among Erastus's (Confirm. Thes., lib. 1, cap. 3 and 4) arguments against excommu

1 R. Mosis Canones Pænitentiæ, cap. 2. Quicunque verbis confitetur, et ex corde non statuit peccatum derelinquere: ecce hic ei similis est qui lavat, et manu reptile immundum retinet: neque enim quicquam prodest lavatio, donec reptile abjecerit. Et hoc illud est quod a sapiento illo dicitur. Qui autem confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea, misericor

diam consequetur. Quin et oportet ut peccatum speciatim recenseat. Quia dicitur: Obsecro domine, peccavit populus iste peccatum maximum feceruntque sibi deos aureos.

nication, 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 restrain, 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 Jews and foreigners, being circumcised, and not being legally unclean, nor in a journey, should compear thrice in the year before the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the three solemn feasts-of the passover, 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 than 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 privileges; 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 cxcluding and separating of the unclean under the law, did signify the excluding of scandalous sinners. from communion with the church, he spendeth a long chapter (lib. 2, cap. 1) against that opinion, and laboureth to make it appear that the legal uncleanness did signify the corruption of our nature and unbelief; that exclusion from the temple did signify exclusion from the heavenly paradise; and that the cleansing and reception into the temple, did typify 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 only 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 sin

ners.

First, It is certain that for divers sins against the moral law the sinners were appointed not only to bring their trespassofferings, but to confess the sin which they had committed, and to declare their repentance for the same; and till this was done, the trespass-offering was not accepted. Let

us but have the like, that is, a confession of the sin and declaration of repentance, and then men shall not be excluded for scandals formerly given. Erastus (p. 106, 107, 148, 149) himself acknowledgeth, that in this point of the confession of sin the analogy must hold betwixt the Old and New Testament; only he pleadeth that the very act— the very desiring of the sacrament of the Lord's 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, confess themselves to be sinners, and that they have not perfectly kept the commandments of God. But all this, say I, cannot satisfy the argument drawn from that confession of sin under the law. For, 1. It was not a confession ipso facto, by the bringing of the trespass-offerings, but by word of mouth; and thus it hath been expounded by the Hebrew doctors:1 The owners of sin and trespass-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant, or for their presumptuous sins, atonement is not made for them by their oblation until they have made repentance and confession by word of mouth. 2. It was not a general confession that one is a sinner, and hath not perfectly kept the commandments 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 speak of the suspending of any from the Lord's table), but it

Mark,

was a confession of the particular individual sin which had been committed; Lev. v. 5, "And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing." Mark, in that thing. Num. v. 7, " Then they shall confess their sin which they have done." Which law is to be understood of all like sins and trespasses, that is, that other sins which were expiated by sacrifice were first to be confessed.2 All this maketh against Erastus.

Next, Whereas he saith (p. 106, 113) that this confession or declaration of repentance for sin, in the Old Testament, had place only in those sins 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 deal of boldness and confidence

1 See Ainsworth, Annot. on Num. v. 7. 2 Ainsworth on Lev. vi. 4.

(as his manner is), he doth maintain, intending thereby (it seems) to exempt from all manner of church discipline whatsoever is punishable by the civil magistrate, as adultery, perjury, and the like. But that which he affirmeth so strongly is manifestly contrary to the express law, Lev. vi. 1—8, where wilful lying and perjury, robbing and violence, fraud and cozenage, all these were to be confessed and expiated by sacrifice, notwithstanding that they were also to be severely punished by the civil 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. v. 6-8, for one and the same offence, the law enjoineth both that confession be made and expiation; and, moreover, that recompense be made to the party injured, or to his kinsman. Yea, the law, Num. v. 6, 7, speaketh universally, "When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, &c., then they shall confess their sin which they have done," which made the Hebrews extend this law to criminal and capital cases, as Mr Ainsworth upon the place noteth out of these words of Maimonides: "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, until they have repented and confessed; and so he that hurteth his neighbour, or doth him damage, though he payeth him whatever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him till he confess." Therefore 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 only for ceremonial, but for moral uncleanness, I mean for public and scandalous sins against the moral law, Ezek. xiv. 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 practice 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 xxxvi. 1, "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes." To the same purpose we read, Ezra vi. 21, not that all proselytes, nor all uncircumcised, but only "all such as had separate themselves from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel," did eat of the passover. Moreover, we may argue, by a necessary consequence, from Scripture: The ceremonial uncleanness was a cause of exclusion from the sanctuary, and from the holy things; therefore much more moral uncleanness. It was more sinful in itself, and more abominable in God's sight, for those who did steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, and burn incense to Baal, to come and tread in the courts of the house of the Lord, and to offer sacrifices there, as if God's house had been a den of robbers, Isa. i. 11-14; Jer. vii. 9-11,—this, I say, was more abominable to God than 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 legal uncleanness; therefore, when Christ casteth out the buyers and sellers out of the temple, it is not for ceremonial but moral uncleanness, and he applieth to them the words of Jeremiah, "Ye have made it a den of thieves," Matt. xxi, 13, with Jer. vii. 11. And as it was more sinful to the person, and more hateful to God, so it was more hurtful to the souls of others, who were in greater danger of infection from the moral than from the ceremonial uncleanness. This Erastus denieth indeed,1 but his expression is unsavoury and unholy, which I am ashamed to repeat. Sure the Apostle speaketh far otherwise, Heb. xiii. 15, 16, " Lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau." A profane or scandalous person defileth, you see, many others; and sin was of a defiling nature under the Old Testament as well as under the New. I mean a root of bitterness not plucked up a profane person not censured, doth defile others as well as himself. Both Peter and Jude have told us,

1 P. 145. Cum ergo quæritur cur ei qui semen præter voluntatem noctu emisit, ad sacra adire non licuerit, priusquam mundaretur, scortatori autem et concubinario licuerit? respondeo, quia ille ad se appropinquantes contaminabat; hic Deo et sibi immundus tantum erat: aliosque non magis inquinabat, quam si cum uxore legitima cubavisset.

that scandalous persons are spots and blemishes in the communion of saints, 2 Pet. ii. 13; Jude, ver. 12; so that, as Erastus granteth that one legally unclean could make others legally unclean among whom he came, and therefore was kept off from fellowship and company with the congregation of God's 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 evil deed, 2 John 10, how much more doth the admitting of such or the like scandalous sinners to the Lord's table, make (I say not all who communicate then and there, but) all who consent to their admission, to be partakers of their evil deeds.

Fourthly, Whereas Erastus holdeth that the exclusion of the unclean under the law did only typify something which is to come to pass in the life to come, that is, the shutting forth of sinners from the heavenly paradise if they be not washed from their filthiness by the blood of Jesus Christ, and therefore ought not to be unto us any argument for the exclusion of scandalous sinners,1 I answer, If the shutting out from heaven was the only 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 again, and in and out again, as, under the law, one might be many times admitted into the temple and shut out again. 2. It would also follow that there is some other exclusion greater than 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 God's people; for though every uncleanness which did exclude one from the company of the Israelites did also exclude him from the sanctuary, yet every uncleanness 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 Lord's table is not the greatest and worst exclusion, but there is

1 P. 140. Quocirca non fuit exclusio hæc, qua propter legis immunditiam aliqui prohibebantur venire in cætus publicos, figura rei cujuspiam in hoc seculo complendæ, sed imago et simulacrum fuit rei in altera vita perficiendæ.

2 Tostatus in Lev. xii., quest. 21.