Ans. Not to insist now upon these Texts, Deut. 17. 9. 12. & 21. 5. Ez•. 44. 24. which hold forth the juridical power of the Priests more generally and comprehensively, without restricting it to cases of clean and unclean only; nor yet to repeat diverse other answers before given, in answer to Erastus and M. Prynne, concerning legal and moral uncleanness; I shall here only give this one answer out of that Text 2 Chro. 23. 19. none which was unclean in any thing. What cogent argument can now restrict this Text concerning the exclusion of unclean persons from the Temple, to such only who were legally or ceremonially unclean? If we should suppose and grant that it is meant only of the legal uncleanness, yet both by Analogy and à fortiori, that Text affordeth an argument against the Erastians, and I have accordingly made use of it before; Yet nevertheless I believe it will puzzle them to prove that this Text doth not comprehend those also that were morally unclean, that is, scandalous profane persons. For my part I do believe that it is meant of keeping back those that were morally unclean, as well as those that were ceremonially such. And my reasons are these, 1. The Text saith generally, none which was unclean in any thing, or as the 70 have it, [Greek or Hebrew], such as were unclean in every or any word, or (if you will) against any word, that is, against any Commandment of the Law, 2. Because impiety, profaneness, and wickedness hath the name of uncleanness, even in the old Testament; & such as commit sin and ungodliness are called unclean, and are said to defile themselves, as well as those that were legally unclean. I shall not need to expound, Lev. 5. 3. if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal; as if it were meant of fellowship with scandalous sinners; which is Origens Interpretation, Hom. 3. in Levit. who also ⟨p. 143⟩taketh a commentary to that Text from, 1 Cor. 5. 11. It will have more weight in it, to observe Targum Onkel•s, Deut. 23. 2. Where the Law concerning Mamzer a bastard or whores son, is thus explained, A bastard shall not be clean that he may enter into the Congregation of the Lord: even unto the tenth Generation his sons shall not be clean that they may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But I will give yet surer warrants for what I say. Job. 36. 14.
Ans. Not to insist now upon these Texts, Deut. 17. 9. 12. & 21. 5. Ez•. 44. 24. which hold forth the juridicall power of the Priests more generally and comprehensively, without restricting it to cases of cleane and uncleane only; nor yet to repeat diverse other answers before given, in answer to Erastus and M. Prynne, concerning legall and morall uncleannesse; I shal here only give this one answer out of that Text 2 Chro. 23. 19. none which was unclean in any thing. What cogent argument can now restrict this Text concerning the exclusion of uncleane persons from the Temple, to such only who were legally or ceremonially unclean? If we should suppose and grant that it is meant onely of the legall uncleannesse, yet both by Analogy and à fortiori, that Text affoordeth an argument against the Erastians, and I have accordingly made use of it before; Yet neverthelesse I believe it will puzle them to prove that this Text doth not comprehend those also that were morally uncleane, that is, scandalous prophane persons. For my part I doe believe that it is meant of keeping back those that were morally unclean, as well as those that were ceremonially such. And my reasons are these, 1. The Text saith generally, none which was uncleane in any thing, or as the 70 have it, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, such as were uncleane in every or any word, or (if you will) against any word, that is, against any Commandement of the Law, 2. Because impiety, profannesse, and wickednesse hath the name of uncleannesse, even in the old Testament; & such as commit sin and ungodlinesse are called unclean, and are said to defile themselves, as wel as those that were legally uncleane. I shall not neede to expound, Lev. 5. 3. if he touch the uncleannesse of man, whatsoever uncleannesse it be that a man shall be defiled withall; as if it were meant of fellowship with scandalous sinners; which is Origens Interpretation, Hom. 3. in Levit. who also ⟨p. 143⟩taketh a commentary to that Text from, 1 Cor. 5. 11. It will have more weight in it, to observe Targum Onkel•s, Deut. 23. 2. Where the Law concerning Mamzer a bastard or whoores son, is thus explained, A bastard shall not be clean that he may enter into the Congregation of the Lord: even unto the tenth Generation his sons shall not be clean that they may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But I will give yet surer warrants for what I say.
