the faithfull from their sinnes See Conci Triden de sacr Ordin cap. 1. Hier. Savanarola Triumph cruc lib. 3. cap. 16. And the same two make up the proper office of the Priest by the order of the English Service Booke As touching Deacons they were ordained by the Apostles for collecting receiving keeping and distributing of Ecclesiasticall goods for maintaining of Ministers schooles Churches the sicke stranger and poore The Popish and Prelaticall Deacons have no such office but an office which the Apostles never appointed to them for they had no preaching nor baptising Deacons Philip preached and baptised not as a Deacon but as an Evangelist Acts 21.8 Besides at the time of his preaching and baptising hee could not have exercised the office of his Deaconship by reason of the persecution which scattered rich and poore and all Acts 8.1 that which Steven did Acts 7. was no more then every believer was bound to doe when he is called to give a testimony to the truth and to give a reason of his faith and practice 4. Others of the faithfull besides the Ministers of the Word have beene admitted unto Councells and Synods by many Christian Churches throughout the World as is well knowne and this is a manifest foot-step of the government of ruling Elders 5. Nay in the Church of England it selfe at this day there are foot-steps of ruling Elders else what meaneth the joyning of Lay-men with the Clergy in the high Commission to judge of matters Ecclesiasticall Sâ—ravia saith the Churchwardens which are in every Parish of England have some resemblance of ruling Elders whose change appointed by law he saith is to collect keepe and deburse the goods and revenues of the Church to preserve the fabricke of the Church and all things pertaining thereto sure and safe to keep account of baptismes mariages and burials to admonish delinquents other inordinate livers to delate to the Bishop or his substitutes such as are incorrigible scandalous being sworn thereto also to observe who are absent froÌ„ the praiers in the Church upon the Lords dayes upon the holy dayes to exact from them the penalty appointed by law and finally to see to quietnes decency in time of divine service Doctor Fields second reason is for that Paul 1 Tim. 3. shewing who should be Bishops and Ministers who Deacons yea who Widowes passeth immediatly from describing the qualitie of such as were to be Bishops and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments to the Deacons omitting these ruling Elders that are supposed to lye in the midst betweene them which he neither might nor would have omitted if there had beene any such To this the answer is easie 1. As we collect the actions and sufferings of Jesus Christ and the institution of the last supper not from any one of the Evangelists but from all of them compared together for that one toucheth what another omitteth so doe we judge of the office-bearers of the Church not from 2 Tim. 3. only but from the collation of that and other places of Scripture of that kind Ruling Elders are found in other places and in the fifth Chapter of that same Epistle though not in the third 2 Neither were there any absurdity to hold that the Apostle in that third Chapter comprehendeth all the ordinary office-bearers in the Church under these two Bishops and Deacons and that under the name of Bishops he comprehendeth both Pastors Doctors ruling Elders for as al these three are overseers so to them all agree the qualities of a Bishop here mentioned whereof there is only one which seemeth not to agree to the ruling Elder viz. that he should be apt to teach vers 2. Yet Beza maintaineth against Saravia that the ruling Elder teacheth as wel as the Pastor only the Pastor doth it publickly to the whole congregation the ruling Elder doth it privately as he findeth every one to have need And we have shewed before that as a private Christian is bound in charity to teach the ignorant so the ruling Elder is bound to doe it ex offâ—cio The third reason which Doctor Field bringeth against us is for that neither Scripture nor practice of the Church bounding the government of such governours nor giving any direction how farre they may goe in the same and where they must stay lest they meddle with that they have nothing to doe with men should bee left to a most dangerous uncertainety in an office of so great consequence Our answer to this is 1. Wee have shewed already the certaine bounds of the power and vocation of ruling Elders 2. It was not necessary that the Apostle should severally set downe Canons and directions first touching Pastors then Doctors lastly ruling Elders since they are all Elders and all members of the Eldership or Presbytery it was enough to deliver canons and directions common to them all especially since the duties of ruling Elders are the same which are the duties of Pastors only the Pastors power is cumulative to theirs and over reacheth the same in the publicke ministery of the Word and Sacraments and so doth Paul difference them 1 Tim. 5.17 His fourth reason is because we fetch the paterne of the government of ruling Elders from the Sanedrim of the Jewes the platforme whereof wee suppose Christ meant to bring into his Church when he said Tell the Church whereas saith he it is most cleere that the court was a civill court and had a power to banish to imprison yea and to take away life till by the Romans the Jewes were restrained Wee answer that Beza de Presbyteriâ— I. B. A. C. De polit civil Eccl. lib. 2. Also Zepperus Iunius Piscator Wolphius Godwin Bucerus Gerard And sundry others have rightly observed that the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim among the Jewes was distinct from the civill yet both called by the name of Sanedrim Wee grant with Beza that sometimes civill causes were debated and determined in the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim but this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he saith the fact which was meerely civill was judged in the â—ivill Sanedrim but when the civilâ— Judges could not agree de jure even in civill causes in that case resolution was given by the other Sanedrim as in like cases by the juris-consults among the Romans for the conservation and interpretation of the law did belong to the Leviticall Tribe Hence it is that we read 2 Chron. 19.8.11 Iehosaphat set in Ierusalem of the Levits and of the chiefe Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel some for the Lords matters among whom presided Amariah the chiefe Priest and some for the Kings matters among whom presided Zâ—badiah the Ruler of the house of Judah Saravia saith this place proveth not that there were two distinct consistories one for civill another for Ecclesiasticall things because saith he by the Kings matters are meant matters of peace and warre by the Lords
such names but were called Judges 3. Our Saviour distinguisheth the Synagogicall Courts from the civill Courts of judgement in Cities calling the one Councells the other Synagogues Matth. 10.17 4. The beating and scourging in the Synagogues was an errour and abuse of the later times the corrective power of those Consistories being properly spirituall and ending in excommunication Jo. 16.2 Isai. 66.5 the liberty of which spirituall censures the Romans did permit to the Jewes together with the liberty of their religion after they had taken away their civill Jurisdiction 5. Civill excommunication is an unknowne word and his reason for it is no lesse unknowne for where he hath read that Christ or any of his Disciples were excommunicate out of the Synagogues and yet had free accesse to the Temple I cannot understand if it be not in the Gospell of Nicodemus I read Luke 4.28.28 that Christ was in a great tumult cast out of the City of Nazareth but this I hope no man will call excommunication The blinde man Joh. 9.34 was indeed excommunicated out of the Synagogue but wee no where read that hee was thereafter found in the Temple we read of Christs walking in Solomons porch Jo. 10.23 but that the blinde man was then with him it can never be proved and if it could it should not import any permission or leave given to excommunicate persons to enter into the Temple but that some were bold to take this liberty 6. The casting out of the Synagogue cannot be called civil excommunication because the communion and fellowship of the Jewes in the Synagogue was not civill but sacred they met for the worship of God and not for civill affaires 7. If by civill excommunication he meane banishment or casting out of the City for I conceive not what other thing this strange word can import then how doth he suppose that they had still free accesse to the Temple who were so excommunicated for this importeth that they were still in the City Wee have now evinced an Inferiour Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes Come we next to the supreame Court That there was an high Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim distinct from the Civill Sanedrim is observed by Pelargus on Deut. 17. and Sâ—pingius ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 261. seq Beside many others cited before part 1. chap. 11. And that it was so wee prove from three places of the old Testament to passe other places from which certaine collections may be had to the same purpose First we finde Deut. 17. a distinction of two supreame Judicatories to bee set in the place which the Lord should choose to put his name there the one of the Priests Leviâ—s the other of the Judges unto these two supreame Courts the Lord appointed all matters which were too hard for the inferiour Judges in the Cities of the Land to bee brought and determined by their authority and the sentence of the Priests or of the Judges to be obeyed both by the parties and by the inferiour Judges under pain of death v. 8.9.10.11.12 To this Sutlivius answereth that there is only one Sanedrim in that place which was civill as appeareth by their judging of the causes of blood and their receiving of appellations from the civill Judges mentioned in the preceding Chapter As for the Judge which is spoken of v. 9. and 12. he saith we must understand that it was the high Priest Ans. 1. The disjunctive Or doth distinguish the Judges from the Priests verse 12. as Iunius and Ainsworth doe rightly note upon that place The man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge Here a distinction betwixt the Court of the Priests and the Court of the Judges which Lyranus also acknowledgeth 2. The Chaldee readeth Iudges in the plurall By the Judge saith Ainsworth is understood the high Councell or Senat of Judges even as they who are called Priests verse 9. are called the Priest verse 12. and 1 Chron. 4.42 many Captaines are in the Hebrew called an head 3. The high Priest cannot be understood to bee the Judge there spoken of both because there were many Judges as hath beene said and because wee finde not in Scripture that ever the high Priest was called by the name of the Judge 4. Whereas hee objecteth that the causes of blood and other civill causes were judged in this Sanedrim Wee answer there were two severall things in those civill causes the Ius and the factum The Ius was judged in the Court of the Priests because as Bâ—lson teacheth the civill Law of the Jewes was Gods judiciall Law and it was to be sought at the Priests mouth But the fact being meerely civill was judged by the civill Court Sutlâ—vius objecteth that many inconveniences shall follow this distinction 1. Judges are hereby made ignorant of the Law 2. That two Courts of judgement are appointed in one sentence 3. That a Judge the Priest may give out a sentence which he cannot execute 4. That the civill Judges doe in vaine inquire concerning the fact which was before certaine by the Law nam ex facto jus oritur 5. That the civill Judges are dumbe Images which must pronounce according to the sentence of others To the 1. we say that our distinction doth not import that the Judges were ignorant of the Law but that it pertained not to them to judge the meaning of the Law when the same was controverted among the Infeferiour civill Judges this pertained to the Court of the Priests 2. It is no absurdity to expound a disjunctive sentence of two severall Courts 3. He who answereth meerely de jure hath nothing to doe with execution of persons more then theory hath to doe with practice or abstracts with concrets 4. The fact can never be certaine by the sentence de jure It is not the probation but the supposition of the fact whereupon the exposition of the sence of the Law is grounded 5. The cognition of the fact not of the law doâ—h belong to an Inquest in Scotland they are Iudicâ—s factâ— non Iuris Yet no dumbe Imâ—â—es I suppose 6. Hee hath followed the Popish Interpreters in making the Judge to be the High Priest forso they expound it for the Popes cause yet they themselves acknowledge the distinction of Ius and factum See Corn. a lapide in Deut. 17.7 If error had not blinded this mans eyes with whom I deale I should believe hee had beene flumbring when these things fell from his pen. But to proceed as these two Sanedrims were instituted in the Law of Moses so were they after decay or desuetude restored by Iehoshaphat 2 Chro. 19.8 Sutlivius answereth that wee have here only one Sanedrim which judged both the Lords matters and the Kings matters and that it was not an Ecclesiasticall Court because it judged causes of blood and other civill causes wherein appellation was made from
the Judges of the Cities By the Lords matters hee saith are meant criminall and civill causes which were to be judged according to the Law of the Lord and by the Kings matters are meant his patrimony and domesticke affaires Answer 1. The Text distinguisheth two Courts one which medled with the Lords matters whose president was Amariah the chiefe Priest another which medled with the Kings matters whose president was Zebadiah This is so plaine that Bonfierius the Jesuit on Deut. 17. though he maketh the Priests to have beene the Judges yet acknowledgeth two distinct Courts 2 Chron. 19. 2. The words vers 8. must be understood respectively as Didoclavius hath observed which we explaine thus Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehshoaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord that is for causes Ecclesiasticall and repeat of the Levits of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for controversies about civill matters saith Piscator So that some of them were appointed to judge the one and some of them to judge the other which proveth not either that the Courts were one or that the same men sate in both but only that some of the Priests and some of the Fathers of Israel were in both 3. The Lords matters Lavater and Piscator expound to be matters Ecclesiasticall the Kings matters to be things civill and this exposition comprehendeth all things which did fall within the power of those Courts But Sutlivius glosse doth not so for there were sundry things to be judged which were neither the Kings domesticke affaires not yet causes criminall or civill such as were questions about vowes questions about the meaning of the Law and judging betwixt the holy and the prophane betwixt that which was cleane and that which was uncleane These and such like Ecclesiasticall causes he leaveth out and they are indeed left out of the power of the civill Sanedrim and reserved to the other for in such controversies the Priests were to stand in judgement Ezech. 44.23.24 Lastly it is not to be thought that the high Sanedrim should neede to be troubled with the Kings domesticke affaires farre lesse that this should be made the one halfe of their commission Now as wee have the institution of these two supreame Courts Deuter. 17. and the restitution of them both 2 Chron. 19. so have we an example of both Jerem. 26. For first Ieremiah was condemned as worthy of death because hee had spoken against the Temple and the holy place verse 8.11 and herein saith Oecolampadius on that place hee was a Type of Christ against whom it was pronounced in the Councell of the chiefe Priests and Elders He is guilty of death So did this Ecclesiasticall Court conclude agâ—iâ—st Ieremy He is worthy of Death yet the câ—nâ—rary was concluded in the civill Sanedrim verse 10.16 This man say they is not worthy to dye for he hath spoken to us in the Name of the Lord our God As much as to say you Priests have given sentence de jure against Ieremiah but we finde he is not guilty of the fact whereof he is accused for he hath spoken nothing but the truth which the Lord sent him to speake therefore as you pronounced him worthy of death upon supposition of the fact wee now pronounce that he is not worthy of death because wee finde him blamelesse of the fact Sutclivius denieth that the Priests were Iudices Iuris and the Princes Iudices facti only the Princes did against the will of the Priests set Ieremiah free whom they had destinated to death But say I he must either deny that Ieremiah was judged in two severall Courts or not if he deny it the Text is against him for that hee was judged in the Court of the Princes it is plaine from verse 10.16 and that hee was judged in the Court of the Priests is plaine also from verse 8.9 Where we finde the Priests comming together neither to reason with Ieremiah for they had no such purpose as to give him leave to speake for himselfe nor yet to accuse him for that they do before the Princes v. 11. Therefore it was to give sentence for their part against him which they did but if he grant that sentence was given in two Courts I would gladly know what difference could bee made betwixt the one sentence and the other except that difference de jure and de facto especially the same suting the Text so well as hath beene said Of the vestigies of those two supreame Courts still remaining in some sort distinct in the daies of Christ I have spoken before And now to proceed Wee have proved the Antecedent of this our present Argument concerning distinct Ecclesiasticall Courts among the Jewes and the subjection of the lower unto the higher of the Synagogue unto the Sanedrim But we have yet more to doe for the consequence of our Argument is also denyed both by the Prelaticall faction and by others whom wee are more sorry to contradict holding that reasons fetcht from the Jewish Church doe better fat the Prelats then the Consistorians howsoever now to fetch the forme of Government for the Church from the Church of the Jewes were say they to revive the old Testament To me it seemeth strange that both the one side and the other doe when they please reason from the formes of the Jewish Church and yet they will not permit us to reason in like manner The former goe about to prove the Prelacy by the high Priesthood and the lawfull use of Organs in the Church from the like in the Temple of Solomon The latter doe argue that a Congregation hath right not only to elect Ministers but to ordaine them and lay hands on them because the people of Israel laid hands on the Levits That the maintainance of the Ministers of the Gospell ought to bee voluntary because under the Law God would not have the Priests and Levits to have any part or inheritance in the Land of Canaan but to be sustained by the Offerings and Altars of the Lord. That the power of excommunication is in the body of the Church because the Lord laid upon all Israel the duty of removing the uncleane and of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passover Is it right dealing now to forbid us to reason from the forme of the Jewes I will not use any further expostulation but let the Reader judge The truth is this even as that which is in a childe as he is a childe agreeth not to a man yet that which is in a childe as he is animal rationale agreeth also to a man so what wee finde in the Jewish Church as it was Jewish or in infancy and under the pedagogy of the Law agreeth not indeed to the Christian Church But whatsoever the Jewish Church had as it was a politicall Church or
Secondly Zaken doth not ever signifie a Ruler or a man in authority as we have shewed before Thirdly let us grant Zaken to bee a name of dignity and to import a chiefe man yet a chiefe man is not ever a Magistrate nor a Ruler It would onely follow that they were of the chiefe of the fathers of Israel that were joyned with the Priests in the Sanedrim and so it was 2 Chron. 19.8 Non hercle de plebe hominum lecti sed nobilissimi omnes saith P. Cunaeus They were saith Loc. Theol. to 6. § 28. Proceres tribuum qui allegabantur una cum sacerdotibus scribis in sacrum synedrium Fourthly they who were so joyned in Councell with the Priests 2 Chron. 19.8 are plainely distinguished from the Judges and Magistrates vers 11. And so are the Princes Rulers distinguished from the Elders Act. 4.5 Judg. 8.14 Deut. 5.23 Jos. 8.33 Fifthly we would know whether he thought that all the Magistrates of the Jews sate in Councel with the Priests or some of them onely if some only we desire either proofe or probability who they were and how many if all then should wee by the like reason admit not the supreame Magistrate alone which hee seemeth to say into the Synods of the Church but all Magistrates whatsoever and what a confusion should that bee Sixthly those Elders that sate in the civil Sanedrim were Rulers by their sitting there but the Elders which sate in the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim either were not civill Magistrates or at least sate not there as Magistrates So do our Magistrates sometimes sit with us as members of our Assemblies not as Magistrates but as Elders Of the distinction of those two Courts which every one observeth not we shall speake more afterward We have said enough against Saravia but Bilson doth better deserve an answer who alledgeth more specious reasons to prove that the Elders of the Jewes were their civill Magistrates Hee saith There was no Senate nor Seniors among the Jewes but such as had power of life and death of imprisonment confiscation banishment c. which hee maketh to appeare thus In the dayes of Ezra the punishment of contemners was forfeiture of their substance and separation from the congregation Ezra 10.8 The triall of secret murther was committed to the Elders of every City Deut. 21.3.4 They delivered the wilfull murtherer unto the Avenger of bloud to be put to death Deut. 19.12 They condemned a stubborne sonne to death Deut. 21.19 They chastened a man who had spoken falsly of his wife that hee found her not a virgin Deut. 22.15.16.18 Ans. First if it should bee granted that the Elders spoken of in these places were civill Magistrates this proveth not that there were no Ecclesiasticall Elders among the Jewes Iustellus in his Annotations upon the Booke of the Canons of the African Church distinguisheth betwixt the civill Elders mentioned Can. 91. who were called Seniores locorum or Vrbium and the Ecclesiasticall Elders mentioned Can. 100. who were called Seniores Ecclesiae and Seniores Plebis the former name distinguishing them from the civill Elders the latter distinguishing them from Preaching Elders So there might be the same two sorts of Elders among the Jewes And what then It is enough for us that wee finde in the Jewish Church some Elders joyned with the Priests employed in things Ecclesiasticall The Elders and Priests are joyned together both in the new Testament as Matth. 26.59 the chiefe Priests and Elders so in other places before cited And likewise in the old Testament Exod. 24.1 Come up unto the Lord thou and Aaron Nadab and â—bihu and seventy of the Elders of Israel Deut. 27.1 Moses with the Elders compared with vers 9. Moses and the Priests Ezech. 7.26 The Law shall perish from the Priest and counsell from the ancients Jer. 19 1. Take of the ancients of the people and of the ancients of the Priests Wee finde also the Commandements of God first delivered to the Elders and by them to the people Exod. 12.21.28 and 19.7.8 It is said Deut. 27.1 Moses with the Elders of Israel commanded the people Upon which place Hugo Cardinalis saith Argumentum c. Here is an argument that a Prelat ought not to command any thing without the counsell of the Elders Secondly but it cannot bee proved that these Elders in the places objected were Judges or Magistrates nay the contrary appeareth from other places which wee have before alledged for the distinction of Elders from Magistrates or Judges whereunto wee may adde 2 Kings 10.1 Vnto the Rulers of Iezreel to the Elders and to them that brought up Ahabs children And verse 5. Hee that was over the house and hee that was over the Citie the Elders also and the bringers up of the children Ezra 10.14 The Elders of every Citie and the Iudges thereof Fourthly we read of threescore and seventeen Elders in Succoth Judg. 8.14 whereas the greatest number of Judges in one Citie among the Jewes was three for smaller matters and three and twenty for greater matters This objection Bilson himselfe moveth but answereth it not Fiftly as for the places which hee objecteth against us the first two of them make against himselfe In Ezra 10.8 wee finde not onely the civill punishment of forfeiture but also as Pellicanus on that place and Zepperus de pol. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 7. doe observe the Ecclesiasticall punishment of excommunication or separation from the Congregation the former answering to the councell of the Princes the latter to the councell of the Elders The place Deuter. 21.3.4 maketh against him in three respects First the Elders of the City did but wash their hands over the beheaded Heifer and purge themselves before the Lord from the bloodshed which was a matter rather Ecclesiasticall then civill neque enim c. For there was no neede of a Iudge here who should be present formally as Iudge saith Bonfrerius the Jesuite upon that place Secondly the controversie was decided by the word of the Priests vers 5. Thirdly Tostatus thinketh that the Elders the Judges are plainely distinguished vers 2. Thy Elders and thy Iudges shall come forth Quaeras hic c. Thou mayest here aske saith Pelargus why the Elders of the people and the Iudges were both together called out I answer because God will have both the Magistrate and the subjects to be innocent c. As for the other places that which seemeth to prove most for the civill power of the Jewish Elders is Deuter. 22. yet heare what that famous Commentator Tostatus Abulensis saith on that place Quando talis c. When such a cause was to bee judged because it was very weighty the Elders of the City did meet together with the Iudges thereof for in such facts there is some place for conjecture and the Elders who are the wiser sort can herein bee more attentive then others So hee noteth upon Ruth 4.2 that the Elders sate in the gate