the people to God, cannot be supposed to be holier than the paschal lamb, which did show or present Christ to the people, and was a sacrament or seal of the covenant of grace. David also, and his men, in that danger of their lives, had as good right to eat the shew-bread as any Israelite could pretend to for his eating the passover; yea, that was a substantial duty of the second table, which Christ himself justifieth; this was a ceremonial 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 extreme necessity, unless they had for a certain before abstained from the use space of their wives, otherwise lawful, how much less might the passover be given as an holy ordinance (which did not concern the saving of men's lives in extreme necessity) to scandalous persons, living in known whoredom and adultery. Ninthly, I argue from that place, Ezek. xxii. 26, "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane." Will any man say that they were to put a difference between the holy and profane in other ordinances, and not in the passover? And why not in the passover as well as in other ordinances ? If such difference was to be put in the passover, then how shall one imagine that no man was kept back from the passover because of known profaneness or moral uncleanness. For what difference was put between the holy and profane, when the profane 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 only that the priests did profane the holy things in their own practice by eating in their uncleanness, and also in their ministry, because they taught not the children of Israel to put a difference between the clean and the unclean, Maledicis, p. 11. But the text gives not the least ground to restrain this fault of the priests, here reproved, either to their personal actions, or to their doctrinal ministry. Nay, the text will reach to an act of government neglected, for the word here used to express the distinguishing or putting of a difference between the holy and profane is 7, which is often used in Scripture to express an act of government or authority whereby one per son is separated or distinguished from another person, or one thing from another thing, as Ezra viii. 24, " Then I separated twelve of the chief of the priests," &c.; Ezra x. 8, “ All his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation." Here it signifieth such a separation as was a public censure. Why not also Ezek. xxii. 56? The same word is used in the story of the division of the land by Joshua; Josh. xvi. 9, "And the separate cities for the children of Ephraim." It is used also to express God's dividing of light from darkness, Gen. i. 4; also his separating of Israel from all other nations, Lev. xx. 24. And whereas Mr Coleman did take hold of the following words in that place of Ezekiel, "Neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean," as being merely doctrinal,—First (if it were so), how will it appear that these words are exegetical to the former, and that the putting of difference between the holy and profane, mentioned in the former words, was only meant of showing 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 y fecerunt scire, the Septuagints render διέστελλον; and they use διαστέλλω as synonymous with χωρίζω, ἀφορίζω, διορίζω, διαιρέομαι, ἀποχίζω : by all these (signifying to separate or to divide) they render; yea, the Septuagints express a forensical censure or judicial separation by διαστέλλω; as Ezra x. 8, καὶ αὐτὸς διασταλήσεται ; so that when they retain the same word in rendering in this text of Ezekiel, they do thereby intimate that the latter word will reach a power which was more than doctrinal, as well as the former, which I do the rather assert, because is taken by the Septuagints (not seldom) as agreeing in signification with Ty' de voluntate suo certiorem reddidit, constituit, decrevit, so that it will reach the making of others to know a thing, not only doctrinally, but by rules, canons, statutes, and government. Yea, y reach the teaching or making men to know by censures or punishments inflicted; as Judges viii. 16, Gideon took briers and thorns (7, Pagnin, et confregit.), and he brake with these the men of Succoth. Jerome, et contrivit. The Septuagints, ka régaver, comminuit. The English transla tion, "and with these he taught (in the will margin, made to know) the men of Succoth." For this signification of the word, namely, conterere, Arias Montanus, in his Hebrew Lexicon, citeth Isa. liii. 3; Ezek. xix. 7. So conteri, Psal. lxxiv. 5; Prov. x. 9. Upon this last place Mercerus tells us that the Hebrews do not only admit this sense 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 profane, neither have they broken or (divided) between the unclean and the clean." The latter part seemeth to charge the priests with the admission of such as were legally unclean, the former part with the admission of such as were morally unclean, or profane, to such ordinances as were appointed only for the holy and clean. Tenthly, Heathens or strangers, who were not proselytes of the covenant of righteousness, were not permitted to eat of the passover. Now one that is by profession a church member, but living in profaneness and scandalous wickedness, ought to be esteemed as an heathen, Matt. xviii. 17, yea, as worse than an infidel, 1 Tim. v. 8. Hence was it that the word heathen was used for an irreligious or wicked man, as is observed by Mathias Martinius in Lex. Phil. p. 717, 718, and as a discriminating name from believers; so Zonaras in Conc. Carthag. can. 24. When David speaks of his persecuting wicked enemies, though Israelites, he calls them strangers and heathens, Psal. liv. 3; lix. 5. How then can it be supposed that those who were esteemed as heathens were admitted to all church privileges as well as the best Israelites? Eleventhly, That which was among the Jews a sufficient cause to deny circumcision to him who desired to be admitted and received into the Jewish church as Ger ben berith, a proselyte, son of the covenant, or Ger tsedeck, a proselyte of righteousness, was also a sufficient cause to deny the passover to a proselyte who desired to eat it. Even as now that for which we may and ought to refuse baptism to one that desireth it, must needs be also a cause and reason to refuse the Lord's supper to him that desireth to receive it; for he that is not fit to be baptized is much less fit to receive the Lord's supper. But profaneness, or a scandalous conversa tion, was among the Jews a sufficient cause and reason to refuse circumcision. Yea, as Dr Buxtorff tells us in Lexic. Chald. Talm. et Rabbin. p. 408, before the Jews 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 covetousness, ambition, fear, the love of an Israelitish virgin, or the like sinister end. If upon examination it did appear 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 strictness of the law, and how strait and narrow a path he must walk in, telling him also of the persecutions and tribulations of Israel. If after all this trial 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 commandments of the law. How much less would they have circumcised a scandalous person, being so far from any hopeful signs of sincerity that he had the black marks 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 passover ? pass Twelfthly, Compare Ezra vi. 21, with Ezra x. 16, 17. First, it is marked Ezra vi. 21, that such proselytes did eat the over with the children of Israel, 66 as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel." If those who did eat were thus qualified, it is not obscurely intimated that those who were not thus qualified did not eat. And if no proselyte who did not separate himself from the filthiness of the heathen was allowed to eat the passover, then much less was an Israelite who did not separate hinself from the filthiness of the heathen allowed to eat it. I like well Beda's observation upon Ezra x. 16, 17. Israel was purged from unlawful marriages, and the strange wives put away, and this work was ended against the beginning of the first month, to the intent that none defiled with unlawful marriages might eat the passover, 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 faci endum, mundi intrarent, mundi paschalia festa peragerent, &c. Thirteenthly, I argue from the signification of the legal or ceremonial uncleanness, and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally unclean. Without all controversy the keeping back of such was a significant ceremony; for all the legal ceremonies concerning cleanness or uncleanness were teaching ceremonies, and are therefore called doctrines, Matt. xv. 9; Col. xxii. 2. What was taught and signified thereby I have before showed, namely, that profane ones be not admitted to fellowship with God's people in their holy things. Yea, was not profaneness and open wickedness more hateful to God than legal uncleanness? Yes, saith Erastus, p. 144, because God appointed greater punishments for the former than 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 legal uncleanness was more hateful to God than profaneness and wickedness in reference to fellowship in the holy things (for that is the point); he holds that the most flagitious and profane were commanded of God to eat the passover, and yet those that were only legally unclean were forbidden, though the Scripture say, Prov. xv. 8; xxi. 27, that the sacrifice of the wicked is abomination to the Lord, and the oblations of those whose hands were full of blood, his soul hated, and he could not away with them, Isa. i. 11-14, and when they came to his house, he told them, "When ye come to appear before me, who hath required 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 passover, and the admitting only of those that were free, which some of the Zurich divines1 themselves have interpreted to signify the exclusion of those who are servants of sin, and as those who seek only 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 unclean, even those that had scandalously transgressed the moral law, were excluded from the passover. The ground of my argument is that whereof I 1 Lavater, hom. 23 in Ezram. have spoken before, the law for confession of sin and declaration of repentance, without which the trespass-offering was not accepted, Lev. v. 5, 6, which law is extended to every known sin that was to be expiated by sacrifice, Num. v. 6, 7, "When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to go a trespassing against the Lord (the Seventy read, and despising he despise, to note rebellion or contumacy), and that person be guilty (that is, be found guilty, or when the sin shall be known, so the phrase of being guilty is explained, Lev. iv. 13, 14), then they shall confess their sin which they have done;" after which follows restitution to the party wronged, and atonement made by the priest. Whence I argue thus: If the scandalous persons were not admited to the trespass-offering (which was a reconciling ordinance) without confession of their sin, which was known to have been committed by them, much less were they admitted to the passover (which was a sealing ordinance) without such confession of their sin. But scanda lous persons were not admitted to the trespass-offering (which was a reconciling ordinance), without confession of their sin, which was known to have been committed by them; therefore much less were they admitted to the passover (which was a sealing ordinance) without such confession. This argument Í did before, chap. x., vindicate from Mr Prynne. I will here farther strengthen it, and vindicate it from another exception, which, peradventure, will be made against it. The proposition is certain; for some are called to make their peace with God who cannot have any assurance sealed unto them that their peace is made with God. But if God will not be reconciled, he will far less seal reconciliation. "There is no peace to the wicked," saith God, how much less can their peace be sealed to them. The assumption is manifest from the scriptures last cited; and if any shall say that the law, Lev. v., is meant only of private sins and those of ignorance, which, so soon as they come to knowledge, are to be confessed, I answer, 1. It is more than can be proved, that only private sins and those of ignorance are there meant of. Of this I have spoken elsewhere. But be it so. If some private sins, yea, sins of ignorance, were to be publicly confessed when they were known, how much more were public and scandalous sins to be publicly confessed? 2. The Hebrews understand the law of con fession to be extended to all sins 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 do this thing again." 3. In all sacrifices for atonement or expiation, a man laid his hand upon the head of his offering, Lev. i. 4; Exod. xxix. 10, 15, 19. This laying on of hands was the rite used in confession of sin, whereby a man did profess that he was worthy to be destroyed for his sin; and that he laid his sin 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 sin was made by word of mouth, which, as it is the judgment of interpreters, so it is easily proved from Lev. xvi. 21, "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat. Whereupon I conclude, that any sin which was expiated by sacrifice, whether a public or secret offence, was confessed before it was expiated. 4. The law, Num. v. 6, extends confession to any sin that men commit, as hath been before observed. 5. Philippus Gamachæus, a learned doctor of Sorbon, Comment. in Tertiam partem Thomæ, de Poenitentiæ Sacramento, cap. 13, doth ingenuously acknowledge, that the foresaid law of Moses, concerning confession of sin, is no warrant for their private auricular and sacramental confession, because the Jews were not, by that law, bound to confess any other sins1 but sinful actions or external transgressions, nor all such, but chiefly the notorious and scandalous sins. If he had perceived the least colour of an argument from that Mosaical law, for the necessity of confessing private sins to the priest, surely he had taken hold of it, and had not quit it. 1 Tostatus in Lev. i. quæst. 15; Ainsworth on Lev. i. 4. 2 Deinde nec Judæi confitebantur peccata omnia exacte, accurate, sicut nos; non enim peccata interna et mentalia, sed solum externa, quæ opere ipso consummat essent, et in exteriorem actum transiissent, etc. Tertio, nec Judæi omnia externa peccata in confessione declarabant, sed præsertim notoria et publica, ut fert opinio probabilior. CHAPTER XIII. MR PRYNNE'S ARGUMENT FROM I COR. X. (WHICH HE TAKES TO BE UNANSWERABLE) DISCUSSED AND CONFUTED. Mr Prynne, in the 15th page of his Vindication, endeavoureth to prove that spiritual pollution, by reason of gross and scandalous sins, did not debar them that were circumcised from the passover, "as (saith he) Paul expressly determines, 1 Cor. x. 1—10 (an unanswerable text to this purpose), Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant that (the text saith how that) all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat (to wit the passover and manna), and did all drink of the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.' But perhaps all these communicants were visible saints, free from any legal pollution, at least not tainted with any scandalous sin. The Apostle, to take off this evasion, subjoins in the very next words, But with many of them, God was not well pleased,' &c. So that the Israelites, being once circumcised, were all admitted to eat the passover, though some of them were idolaters; others lusters after evil things; others fornicators; others tempters of Christ; others murmurers against God and Moses." The same argument he hinteth, p. 9, to prove the like under the gospel. It is one of Erastus's arguments, Confirm. Thes., p. 118, 119, and as colourable as any other, yet not unanswerable as Mr Prynne holds. For, 1. Though he saith the Apostle clearly determines that those who were tainted with gross and scandalous sins were admitted to the passover, yet I find nothing of the passover, either in the text or in the sense of any interpreter which I have looked upon; nay, it did not so much as fall in the thoughts of Erastus himself; for Beza having objected to him, that he ought to have compared our sacraments with the purely sacred feasts in the Old Testament rather than with the manna, and with the water of the rock, which were for corporal nourishment, Erastus replieth nothing concerning the passover (which had been his best an swer if he had seen any probability for it), only he saith, that he compareth our sacraments with the manna and the water of the rock, as the Apostle doth before him. 2. The text itself seemeth rather to determine clearly that the passover is not there intended; for all the other particulars there mentioned did agree to all the Israelites, men, women, and children: all these were under the cloud, and all these passed through the sea, and all these drank of the water of the rock; and why shall we not understand that all these did also eat of | the same spiritual meat, that is, of the manna, not of the passover, of which women and children under thirteen years of age did not eat? Neither did all the males above thirteen years eat of it; for the unclean were excluded by the law: those that were in a journey did not eat of it, nor the hired servant. The sick, saith Erastus, did not eat of it: the Jews exclude also the dumb and the deaf. If it be said that ver. 1 speaketh only of the fathers, and that therefore the text is not to be understood of women and children also, I answer, This is as inconsequent as if one would argue, Paul saith, “Men, brethren, and fathers," therefore no women were among that multitude of the people, Acts xxi. 35, 36, 39, 40; or thus the Apostle saith, " Brethren, pray for us," therefore he desires not believing sisters to pray for him. In this same text in hand the Apostle speaks to the whole church of Corinth, to make them afraid of God's judgments if they sin as the Israelites did. If he had argued only from the sin and judgment of the men, and not also of the women in the wilderness, the women in Corinth had so much the less applied it to themselves. But if I should grant (which will never be proved), that by the fathers are understood the men only, yet it cannot be said, that as all the men of Israel were baptized in the cloud and sea, and all of them drank of the same spiritual drink which came out of the rock, so all of them did eat the passover; for even of the males divers were excluded from the passover, as the unclean, the hired servant, the child, the sick, &c., so that this would make the Apostle's argumentation, running upon a five-fold all, to hang ill together. I had not insisted at all upon this, but to show the weak grounds of Mr Prynne's strong confidence. 3. If this argument of his hold good, he must grant, by analogy, that all baptized persons must be admitted to the Lord's table, though they be idolaters, fornicators, &c., which, as it is contrary to the ordinance of parliament, so to his own professed tenets ; for he professeth otherwhere, he is not for the admission of scandalous persons to the sacrament, and that he would have them, in case of obstinacy, not only suspended from the sacrament, but excommunicated from all other ordinances, till public satisfaction given for the scandal, and till external symptoms of repentance appear. So The Antidote animadverted tells us, and his own Vindication, p. 50. If this be his mind, then it is incumbent to him to loose his own knotall circumcised persons, though tainted with gross seandalous sins, as idolatry and fornication, were admitted to the passover, and so it ought to be under the gospel. If he say that those scandalous sinners in the wilderness had not been admonished, were not obstinate, or that they professed repentance and promised amendment, and did not, in the meanwhile, persevere in their wickedness, but satisfied for the scandal: First, How proves he that? Next, In so saying he will answer for us as well as for himself; and his argument (if all granted) cannot prove that such scandalous sinners as have manifest symptoms of impenitency, or do not confess and forsake their sin, may be admitted to the Lord's table. 4. The manna, and the water out of the rock, though they had a spiritual and evangelical signification, and did typify Jesus Christ, yet they were also the ordinary food and drink of the people in the wilderness; so that if scandalous sinners had been excluded from partaking of these, they had been deprived of their ordinary daily corporal nourishment, which makes a vast difference between their case in the wilderness, and ours at the Lord's table. 5. The Apostle speaks of those scandalous sins as committed not before, but after the eating of that spiritual meat, and drinking of that spiritual drink. First, This is clear of their baptism in the cloud and in the sea, Exod. xiv., before any of the gross and scandalous sins there mentioned were committed; and therefore was not pertinent to be objected. Immediately thereafter they did eat of the spiritual meat, that is, of the manna, Exod. xvi., and drank of the spiritual drink, that is, of the water out of the rock which followed them, Exod. xvii., “to give drink to my people, my chosen, saith |