Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	aaron_n	high_a	moses_n	38	3	6.4293	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91415	The Jewes synagogue: or, A treatise concerning the ancient orders and manner of worship used by the Jewes in their synagogue-assemblies. Gathered out of the sacred scriptures, the Jewish Rabines, and such modern authors, which have been most conversant in the study of Jewish customes. Wherein, by comparing the scriptures in the Old and New Testament together, many truths are fully opened, and sundry controversies about church-government truly and plainly stated. By William Pinchion of Springfeild [sic] in N. England.	Pynchon, William, 1590-1662.	1652 (1652)	Wing P4309; Thomason E802_4; ESTC R207368	80,705	99

in Apoc. 90. 108 But they say they whipt the high Priest for his faults ●s much as any other man As for example if the high Priest do marry a widdow and lie with her he was beaten twice once for transgressing this Law He shall not take a widdow and once for this He shall not profane Ains Levit. 21. 15. Yea the Talmud in Sanhedrin sheweth that the high Priest was judged in all sorts as any other man Therefore the high Priest was not by the vertue of his high Priests Office the chief Elder of the National Church But the Judges of the high Sanhedrin whereof the King was the head were the chief Elders of the National Church They had the charge and the burden laid upon them to deal in all Levitical controversies as well as in matters of civil justice for as it was the Angel Acts 7. that gave Moses lively Oracles that said unto Moses the King as well as unto Aaron the Priest as they were chief persons in the high Sanhedrin that he should instruct the people in the observation of all Levitical Ordinances Levit. 11. 2. and so on as it follows in the next Chapter as I have noted above 2. It was Moses the King as well as Aaron the Priest that charged all Israel to observe holy convocations every Sabbath in all their dwellings Levit. 23. 3. Christ commanded them to charge the people to observe the Sabbath 3. It was the Angel that had the Name of God in him that first ordained the Elders of the high Sanhedrin as the general Elders of the Church in all matters of Religion as well as in matters of civil Justice they must regain people from Apostacie Therefore Iehovah the Mediator to whom the Father hath committed all authority and power said to the Judges of the Sanhedrin Hear I pray you O ye heads of Jacob and ye Princes of the house of Israel should not ye know judgement Mica 3. 1. As if Christ should say none ought to be Iudges of the Sanhedrin but wise and godly men such as are able to judge and trie causes exactly according to all the Ordinances of Moses We may take Iehosophats example for a Lanthorn to our feet in this case He charged the Iudges to try all matters of Religion as well as civil affairs 2 Chron. 19. But how could they be competent Iudges except they were learned in the Levitical Laws as well as in the Iudicials This shews what care ought to be taken in all those whom it concerns to seek out for the ablest men that can be found for Elders and Iudges for variety of great and difficult matters appertained to their judgement Vide Ans in Levit. 5. 15. and Deut. 25. 2. 4. It is evident that the Iudges of the Sanhedrin were the general Elders of the whole Church because the Sin-offering of the whole Church was presented to the Lord by their hands For if the whole Church did sinne ignorantly in their practise against any branch of the Law of God through the erroneous teaching of the Elders of the Sanhedrin then as soon as this sinfull practise was found out by any man of Israel the Church must bring a bullock for a sin-offering and yet the whole Church of people were not bound to come to Ierusalem to offer this general Church sinne-offering But the whole Church did it being absent by their Elders onely namely by the Elders of the high Sanhedrin Yet still the question will be who among them was the Churches chief Elder in this action The answer is Not the high Priest although he were one of their Elders chosen to be of the Sanhedrin But the Elders of the Sanhedrin Court in general or any three of them did bring this bullock as they were the Churches Elders they laid their hand upon the head of the said Bullock in the name of the whole Church whose sin-offering it was verse 14. 21. Therefore the Elders of the high Sanhedrin might be called the Church for they were the whole Church representatively But after the Churches Elders had thus presented the said Bullock for the sinne-offering of the whole Church it belonged to the high Priect as he was the chief anointed Priest to kill the said Bullock before Iehovah Ains Levit 4. 13 14 15. Hence it follows that the Judges of the high Sanhedrin Court were the General Elders of the whole Church and this thing is put out of doubt because they are plainly called the Elders of the whole Congregation in v. 15. This is so plain that nothing can be plainer spoken and so in like sort the Elders of all the other Sanhedrins being many thousands in all were to be accounted as the Elders of the Church also in all the parts of Canaan in their respective Tribes they must bear the burden with the high Sanhedrin as their Delegates And when the Churches sin-offering was to be offered Aaron the high Priest as he was an Elder of the Sanhedrin must speak to the sons of Israel to bring it namely he must speak to the chief sons of Israel which were the Elders of the high Sanhedrin Court to bring it vide Ains Levit. 9. 3. For these Elders were the highest Officers that the Church had And therefore the term Elder is a superior Title to the term Bishop For the term Bishop is given to those inserior Officers that attended upon the Elders of the Sanhedrin Court Numb 3● 14. vide also Ains in Deut. 16. 18. Yet an Apostate Priest might be a Bishop after his repentance but he might not be an Elder of the Sanhedrin neither might he be restored to be a full Priest any more but he might serve as a Bishop in a place of inferiority in the Temple Ains Levit. 21. 20. ult And I grant that the term Bishop is sometimes given to the highest degree of men For it is sometimes given to the Emperors of Asia as a Title of Honour to their Office And Eleazar the Prince of Princes over the Levites did exercise the Bishops Office over them Ains in Numb 3. 32. That is he did oversee them And in that sense every inferiour Officer that takes the charge to oversee others is a Bishop and so the term Bishop may properly be given to all Officer both high and l●w that take upon them the charge to oversee others as well in civil as in religious matters But the term Elder is never given to inferior Officers as the term Bishop is this distinction I bring in for the honour of the term Elder by way of parenthesis onely Scholar Was the power of Excommunication given to the first Elders of the Sanhedrin when they were first ordained in the wilderness or not Teacher I make no question but Iehovah the Mediator from Iehovah gave them all power that was sutable to the well ordering of his Church from the very first time that he ordained them to be the general Elders of his Church in the

wilderness therefore Christ gave them power of Excommunication originally to the Elders of the Sanhedrin in the wildernes he did then give the power of excommunication into their hands and though it be not in plain terms expressed yet it is implyed by necessary consequence because he gave them power to correct all vice and sin with sutable punishments as I have already demonstrated Therefore seeing that power of Excommunication was given by Christ originally to the Elders of the high Sanhedrin in the Wildernes it must belong also to the Elders of all the other Sanhedrins in their respective places because they had their power of Delegation from them yet by Christs ordinance as above and so in time it went from them to the Elders of each particular synagogue also especially when they lived in dispersed places in several heathen Countries Yea the power of Excommunication was practised in the synagogues of Canaan at least after the captivity if not before Scholar Some learned men do think that Excommunication came not into practise among the Jews until the Romans had taken away the power of life and death from the Elders of the Sanhedrin and that thereupon the Elders of the Sanhedrin were forced to invent the use of excommunication as a capital punishment for capital offenders next unto death and thereupon they think that seing the Elders of the Church of Corinth could not put the Incestuous person to death as Moses Law did appoint Levit. 20. they did excommunicate him out of the Church as the next punishment unto death Teacher I grant that the Romans had taken away the power of life and death from the Sanhedrin-Court of Judea about a yeer or two before the death of Christ as I have formerly noted and therefore the Elders of the Church of Corinth could much less put him to death neither ought Excommunication to be accounted as the greatest punishment next death Neither do I agree to those that say that Excommunication was not in practise among the Jews until that time when the Romans took away the power of life and death from them I do not think that the Elders of the high Sanhedrin at this time being most of them degenerate Scribes and Pharisees would now first have invented such a religious course of Justice as Excommunication rightly used is I rather think that Excommunication was in practise among the Jews in the daies of Moses or at least long before the daies of Ezra And my reasons are these First It is evident that the Son of God did endow the high Sanhedrin in the Wildernes with full power and authority to ordain such Laws as might tend to the suppression and Reformation of scandalous sins and therefore they had power to ordain a Law for Excommunication if they saw it needful as I noted before and therefore they did ordain Excommunication or some other Act of Justice in the place of it Secondly The Hebrew Doctors in Sannedrin say No King ought to be excommunicate except in Jeroboams case but they say That for his great offences the Elders of the Synedrion did warn him to keep his House for a time to salve his honour Hence I reason thus that this rule of Excommunication which is given by the Hebrew Doctors must have relation to those times when Kings reigned among them But the whole race of Kings was ended before the daies of Ezra and no more Kings were suffered to reign afterwards For Ezra and the Doctors of his age knew well enough that they should have no more Kings till Christ came They knew well enough from the Prophesie of Daniel that the four great Beasts would take away the Kingdom of the Saints of the Most High Dan. 7. 18. Therefore he and the Doctors of his age would never have given this rule to preserve the King from Excommunication in relation to succeeding times and therefore they gave this rule to be observed in the daies of Kings at least Thirdly I conceive that Excommunication was in practise before the daies of Ezra because else I cannot see how the godly Jews that were dispersed into sundry heathen Countries where they built synagogues for the exercise of their Religion could possibly preserve their Religion in purity and from scandal without the use and practise of Excommunication in their synagogues And the scattered Jews very hardly could have agreed upon such a practise universally except they had known the use of it among the Jews before the Captivity And it is evident that the Jews did universally practise Excommunication in their synagogues in all heathen Countries by the complaint that Haman the Amalekite made to Ahasuerus against the Jews that were scattered into the hundred twenty and seven Provinces of his Dominion He told the King That their Laws were divers from all people and that they did not observe the Kings Laws Esth 3. 8. This differing Form of Laws from all Nations cannot be understood of any other Laws or Government but such as the Jews did practise in their synagogues I grant they expounded the Law of God in their synagogues but they could not correct incorrigible and scandalous persons without some form of Laws to strengthen their Discipline therefore in reason they could not be without the use and practise of excommunication in all their synagogues And it was foretold that they should not be reckoned among the Nations Numb 23. 9. because they should have certain Laws distinct by themselves Scholar In what cases did the Elders of the Sanhedrin excommunicate Did they excommunicate for sins of Omission as well as for sins of Commission against a Prohibition And did they excommunicate for sins against God as well as for sins against Man Teacher I cannot as yet find in the Hebrew Doctors for what particular sins they did excommunicate but by collection I find that they did excommunicate for sins against the first Table as In what cases the Elders of the Sanhedrin did excommunicate well as for sins against the second Table and for sins of Omission somtimes though most usually for scandalous sins against a prohibition But for sins of trespass against a mans neighbour they did ordinarily punish such sins by imposing upon them some kind of satisfaction by their goods rather then by Excommunication I find one instance in the Hebrew Doctors for Excommunication for a sin against a prohibition of the first Table The case is this Whosoever did any servise work in the Pass-over evening from mid-day and forwards he was to be scourged or excommunicate with the Niddui that is to say with the lesser Excommunication But they did not scourge or excommunicate for working in the Evening of their Festival Sabbaths nor yet for working in the Evening of the Sabbath or seventh day because the evening before the sabbath which by their Ceremonial anti-date they called the evening of the sabbath was not any part of the sabbath it self it was but for preparation to the sabbath But