any thing of that kind to the uncertainty of an occasionall meeting 3 The Apostles were freely present in any Presbyterie where they were for the time because the oversight and care of all the Churches was layd upon them Pastors and Elders were necessarily present therein and did by vertue of their particular vocation meete together Presbyterially whether an Apostle were with them or not No other sense can the Text suffer but that by Presbyterie we should understand consessus Presbyterorum a meeting of Elders and so doe Camero and Forbesse themselves expound it Sutlivius objecteth to the contrary that the Apostle Paul did lay on hands upon Timothy which he proveth both from 2. Tim. 1. and because extraordinary gifts were given by that laying on of hands Ans. There is an expresse difference made betwixt Pauls laying on of his hands and the Presbyteries laying on of their haÌ„ds Of the former it is said that Timothy received the gift which was in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the laying on of Pauls hands but he received the gift 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie as Didoclavius noteth But saith Sutlivius Timothy being an Evangelist as you hold how could hee be ordained by the Presbyterie Ans. 1. Though the Presbyterie did neither give him ordination to bee an Evangelist nor yet conferre by the laying on of their hands extraordinary gifts upon him yet did they lay on their hands as setting to the the Seale and Testimony and commending him to the grace of God even as certaine Prophets and Teachers layd hands on Paul and Barnabas and Ananias also before that time had laid his hands upon Paul 2. The Presbyterie might ordaine Timothy to be an Elder If so be he was ordained an Elder before he was ordained an Evangelist 3. If the testimony of the Presbyterie by the laying on of their hands together with the Apostles hands in the extraordinary mission of Timothy was required much more may it be put out of question that the Apostles committed to the Presbytâ—ry the full power of ordaining ordinary Ministers But it is further objected by Sutlivius that this could not be such a Presbyterie as is among us because ordination and imposition of hands pertaine to none but the Ministers of the word Ans. 1. The children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levites we would know his reason why he denyeth the like power to ruling Elders now especially since this imposition of hands is but a gesture of one praying and a morall signe declaring the person prayed for 2. Howsoever our practice whâ—ch is also approved by good Divines is to put a difference betwixt the act of ordination and the externall right thereof which is imposition of hands ascribing the former to the whole Presbytery both Pastors and Elders and reserving the latter to the Ministers of the word yet to bee done in the name of all Thus have we evinced the Apostles meaning when he speaketh of a Presbyterie and this Consistory we find to have continued in the Christian Church in the ages after the Apostles Jt is certaine that the ancient Bishops had no power to judge any cause without the presence advice and counsell of their Presbyters Conc. Carth. 4. can 23. Field Forbesse Saravia and Douname doe all acknowledge that it was so and so doth Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 8. Of this Presbytery speaketh Cyprian Omni actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium c. Of the Presbytery speaketh the same Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 8. lib. 4. Ep. 5. Ignatius ad Trall and Hierom in Esa. 3. Wee finde it also in conc Ancyr can 18 and in conc Carthag 4. can 35.40 Doctor Forbesse alledgeth that the word Presbytery for fifteen hundred yeares after Christ did signifie no other thing in the Church then a Diocesan Synod But herein if hee had understood himselfe he spake not so much against Presbyteries as against Prelats for a Diocesse of old was bounded within one City Tumque jampridem per omnes provincias per urbes singulas ordinati sint Episcopi c. saith Cyprian It was necessary to ordaine Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Chrysostome speaking of the primitive times yea in Country Villages also were Bishops who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rurall Bishops whose Episcopall office though limited yet was allowed in the Councell of Ancyra can 13. and the Councell of Antioch can 8. 10. Sozomen recordeth that the Village Majuma which was sometime a suburbe of the City Gaza was not subject to the Bishop of Gaza but had its owne proper Bishop and that by the decree of a Synod in Palestina The Councell of Sardis can 6. and the Councell of Laodicea can 57. though they discharged the ordaining of Bishops in villages lest the name of a Bishop should grow contemptible did neverthelesse allow every City to have a Bishop of its owne What hath Doctor Forbesse now gained by maintaining that the bounds of a Presbyterie and of a Diocesse were all one They in the Netherlâ—nds sometime call their Presbyteries Diocaeses and many of our Presbyteries are greater then were Diocesses of old Wee conclude there was anciently a Presbytery in every City which did indeede choose one of their number to preside among them and to lay on hands in name of the rest and hee was called the Bishop wherein they did more trust the deceiveable goodnesse of their owne intentions then advert to the rule of the Word of God These things premitted I come now to that which is principally intended viz. by what warrant and quâ— jure the Classicall Presbyterie among us made up out of many neighbouring congregations should be the ordinary Court of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction at least in all matters of highest importance which doe concerne either all or any of those congregations For resolution hereof we must understand 1. That causes common to many congregations ought not to be judged by any one of them but by the greater Presbytery common to them all 2. It is to bee supposed that particular congregations at least the farre greatest part of them have not in their proper Elderships so many men of sufficient abilities as are requisite in judging and determining the cases of the examination of Ministers of ordination deposition excommunication and the like 3. When one appealeth from a particular Eldership out of perswasion that hee is wronged by the sentence thereof or when that Eldership finding its owne insufficiency for determining some difficult causes resolveth to referre the same into a higher Court reason would that there should be an ordinary Court of a Classicall Presbytery to receive such appellations or references 4. Congregations which lye neare together ought all as one to keep unity and conformity in Church policy and government neither ought one of them be permitted to doe an
the conâ—esâ—ion of our opposites for ruling Elders THE office of Ruling Elders is not onely maintained by 〈◊〉 Cartâ—right Aâ—â—rsâ— Bucerâ—â— and others whom our opposites will call partiall Writers let him who pleaseth read the commentaries of Martyr 〈◊〉 Gualther Hemmingius Piscator Paraus upon Rom. 12.8 1 Cor. 12.28 Aretius on Act. 14.23 Zepper de Polit. Eccles. l. 3. c. 1. 12. Bullinger on 1 Tim. 5.17 Arculâ—rius on Act. 14.23 Catal Test verit col 103. Osâ—and cent 1 l. 4. c. 11. Chemnâ—t exam part 2. pâ—g 2â—8 Gerard. loâ— Theol. tom 6 pâ—g 363 â—64 Muscul. loc com de Eccles. c. 5 Bucan loc com â—oc 42. Suetanus de Discipl Eccles. part 4 c. 3. Polanus Synt. l. 7. c 11. Zanchius in 4 praecep col 727. Iunius animad in Bellâ—r cont 5. l 1. c 2 Danaeus de Polit. Christ. l. 6 p 452. Alsted Theol. cas pag. 518.520 Sopingâ—us ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 253. c. The Professours of Leyden Synt. pur Theol. Disp. 42. and sundry others whose testimonies I omit for brevities cause it is enough to note the places The Author of the Assertion for true and Christian Church policie pag. 196.197 citeth for ruling Elders the testimony the Commissioners of King Edward the sixt authorised to compile a booke for the reformation of Lawes Ecclesiasticall among whom were the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely They say Let the Minister going apart with some of the Elders take counsell c. Voetâ—us citeth to the same purpose Marlorat Hyperius Fulke Whittaker Fenner Bunnius Willet Sadeel Lubbertus Trelcatius both the one and the other yea Socinus and the Remonstrants Besides we have for us the practise of al wel reformed Churches and the Confessions of the French the Belgicke and the Helveticke Churches to be seene in the harmony of Confessions But what will you say if the adversaries of ruling Elders be forced to say somewhat for them Whitgift confesseth not onely that our division of Elders into preaching Elders and ruling Elders hath learned patrons but also that the Christian Church when there was no Christian Magistrate had governing Seniors and elsewhere he saith I know that in the Primitive Church they had in every Church Seniors to whom the government of the Congregation was committed Saravia lendeth them his word likewise Quod à me c. Which is not disputed by mee in that meaning that the Belgicke Churches or any other which doe with edification use the service of these Elders should rashly change any thing before that which is better bee substitute Againe speaking of the government of ruling Elders he saith Quod ut c. Which as I judge profitable and good to bee constitute in a Christian Church and Common-wealth so I affirme no Church no Common-wealth to bee bound thereto by Divine Law except perhaps necessity compell or great utility allure and the edification of the Church require it Loe here the force of truth struggling with one contrary minded Hee judgeth the office of ruling Elders profitable and good yet not of divine right yet hâ—e â—cknowledgeth that necessity utility and the edification of the Church maketh us tyed to it even by divine right But if it be profitable and good why did he call in question the necessity at least the utility and the edification of it can one call in question the utility of that which is profitable he would have said the truth but it stucke in his teeth and could not come forth Saelâ—vius de concil lib. I cap. 8. saith that among the Jewes Seniores tribuum the Elders of the Tribes did sit with the Priests in judging controversies of the Law of God Hence hee argueth against Bellarmine that so it ought to bee in the Christian Church also because the priviledge of Christians is no lessâ— thâ—n the priviledge of the Jewes Câ—mero tells us that when the Apostle 1 Coâ— 6. reproveth the Corinthians for that when one of 〈◊〉 had â— matter against anothâ—â— they 〈…〉 the Saints to bee â—udges 〈…〉 noâ— by the 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 mâ—ltitude sedeos qui in Ecclesia constituti craâ—t ut vacarent gubernationi Ecclesiae that is â—hose who were ordained in the Church to give themselves to the government of the Church My Lord Craigtanne finding the strength of that Argument that if beside the Ministers of the Word other grave and wise Christians may be present in the greatest Assemblies and Councels of the Church why not in Presbyteries also answereth that indeed it is not amisse that the wiser sorâ— among the people be joyned as helpers and assistants to the Pastors providing that this their auxiliary function be not obtruded as necessary This is somewhat for us but we say further if it be necessary in Oecumenicke Councells for no lesse doe the Arguments of our Divines in that question with the Papists conclude then is it necessary in Presbyteries also CHAP. XI Doctor Fields five Arguments against ruling 〈…〉 HIS fiâ—st Reason that shewed 〈◊〉 to thinkâ— there were 〈◊〉 any 〈…〉 Church is because Bishops Presbyters that preach and minister the Sacraments and Deacons howsoever they much degenerated in later times yet all still remained in all Christian Churches throughout the World both Greeke and Latine in their names and offices also in some sort But of these ruling Elders there are no foot-steps to bee found in any Christian Church in the World nor were not for many hundred yeares whereas there would have beene some remaines of these as well as the other had they ever had any institution from Christ or his Apostles as the other had To this wee answer 1. If the Christian Churches throughout the World had wanted ruling Elders longer then they did yet prescription can be no prejudice to the ordinance of God 2. After that the golden age of the Apostles was spent and gone exact diligence was not taken to have the Church provided with well qualified Ministers but many unfit men yea sundry heretickes entred into that sacred vocation whereby it came to passe that corruption and errour overflowed the Churches as both Eusebius proveth from Aegesippus and catalogus testium veritatis from Irenaus Might not this be the cause of changing the office-bearers and government of the Church 3. In the Roman yea in Prelaticall Churches there are scarce any foot-steps at all of the offices of preaching Presbyters and Deacons as they were instituted by the Apostles The Apostles ordained Presbyters to preach the Word to minister the Sacraments to governe the Church and to make use of the keyes But the Popish and Prelaticall Presbyters have not the power of the keyes nor the power of Church government for it is proper to their Prelates as for the other two they are common to their Deacons for they also doe preach and baptise The office of the Popish Priest standeth in two things to consecrate and offer up the body of Christ and to absolve
word onely others he permits onely to consent unto that which is done by them Saravia alloweth grave and learned men to sit with the Ministers of the word yet not as Iudges but as Counsellors and Assessors onely Tilen will not say that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church ought to call any into their Councill but that they may doe it when there is need Against whom and all who are of their mind we object 1. The example of Apostolicke Synods Matthias the Apostle after Gods owne designation of him by the lot which fell upon him was chosen by the voices not onely of the Apostles but the other Disciples who were met with them Act 1.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Simul suffragiis electus est as Arias Montanus turneth it For the proper and native signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Lorinus sheweth out of Gagveius is to choose by voices The Professors of Leyden have noted this consensus Ecclesiae per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the election of Matthias Cens. in Confess cap. 21. Jn the Councill of Hierusalem Act. 15. we find that beside the Apostles the Elders were present and voiced definitively for they by whom the Decree of the Synod was given forth and who sent chosen men to Antioch were the Apostles and Elders Gerard Loc. Theol. com 6. n. 28. and thâ— Profess of Leyden cens in conf c. 21. understand that the Elders spoken of v. 5. 6. were the ruling Elders of the Church of Hierusalem joyned with the Apostles who laboured in the word Other ProtestaÌ„t writers understand by the name of Elders there both preaching and ruling Elders The Brethrent hat is the whole Church heard the disputes and consented to the Decrees v. 21 22 23 Ruling Elders behoved to doe more then the whole Church that is voice definitively Lorinus the Jesuite saith that by the name of Elders there wee may understand not onely Priests but others besides them Viz. antiquiores anctoritate praecellentes discipulos Disciples of greatest age and note And this he saith is the reason why the vulgar Latine hath not retained in that place the Greeke word Presbyteri but readeth Seniores 2. Wee have for us the example of Ecclesiasticall Courts among the Iewes wherein the Iewish Elders had equall power of voicing with the Priests and for this we have heard before Saravia's plaine confession 3. The example of ancient Councils in the Christian Church Constantine in his Epistle which he wrote to the Churches concerning the Nicene Councill saith I my selfe as one of your number was present with them the Bishops which importeth that others of the Laity voiced there with the Bishops as well as he and hee as a chiefe one of their number Euagrius lib. 2. cap. 4. saith that the chiefe Senators sate with the Bishops in the Councill of Chalcedon And after he saith The Senators decreed as followeth The fourth Councill of Carthagâ— c. 27. speaking of the transportation of a Bishop or of any other Clergie man saith sane si id Ecclesiae vtilitas fiendum poposecrit decretâ— Pro eo clericorum laicorum Episcopis porrecto in praeseÌ„tia Synodi transferatur The Decrees of the Synod of France holden by Charlemainâ— about the yeare 743. are said to have beene made by the King the Bishops the Presbyters and Nobles Many such examples might we shew but the matter is so cleere that it needeth not 4. The Revieu of the Councill of Trent written by a Papist among other causes of the Nobility of that Councill maketh this one that Lay-men were not called nor admitted into it as was the forme of both the Apostolicke and other ancient Councils shewing also from sundry Histories and examples that both in France Spaine and England Lay-men vsed to voice and to judge of all matters that were handled in Councils alleaging further the examples of Popes themselves That Adrian did summon many Lay-men to the Lateran Councill as members thereof that in imitation of him Pope Leo did the like in another Councill at the Lateran under Otho the first and that Pope Nicholas in Epist. ad Michael Imperat. acknowledgeth the right of Lay-men to voice in Councils wherein matters of faith are treated of because faith is common to all The same writer sheweth also from the Histories that in the Councill of Constance were 24. Dukes 140 Earles divers Delegates from Cities and Corporations divers learned Lawyers and Burgesses of Universities 5. The Protestants of Germany did ever refuse to acknowledge any such Councill wherein none but Bishops and Ministers of the word did judge When the Councill of Trent was first spoken of in the Dyet at Norimberg Anno 1522. all the estates of Germany desired of Pope Adrian the 6. That admittance might be granted as well to Lay-men as to Clergie-men and that not onely as witnesses and spectators but to be judges there This they could not obtaine therefore they would not come to the Councill and published a booke which they entituled Causa cur Electores caeteri confessioni Augustanae addicti ad CoÌ„cilium Tridentinum non accedant Where they alleage this for one cause of their not comming to Trent because none had voice there but Cardinals Bishops Abbots Generals or superiors of orders wheras laickes also ought to have a decisive voice in Councils 6. If none but the Ministers of the word should sit and voice in a Synod then it could not bee a Church representative because the most part of the Church who are the hearerâ— and not the teachers of the word are not represented in it 7. A common cause ought to be concluded by common voices But that which is treated of in Councils is a common cause pertaining to many particular Churches Our Divines when they prove against Papists that the election of Ministers and the excommunication of obstinate sinners ought to be done by the suffrages of the whole Church they make use of this same argument That which concerneth all ought to be treated of and judged by all 8. Some of all estates in the common-wealth voice in Parliament therefore some of all sorts in the Church ought to voice in Councils and Synods for de paribus idem judicium A Nationall Synod is that same to the Church which A Parliament is to the Common-wealth 9. Those Elders whose right we plead are called by the Apostle rulers Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 and Governours 1 Cor. 12.28 therefore needs must they voice and judge in those assemblies without which the Church cannot be ruled nor governed Jf this be denyed them they have no other function behind to make them Rulers or Governours of the Church Rome was ruled by the Senate not by the Censors and Athens was governed by the Arâ—opagus not by the inferiour Office-bearers who did only take heed how the Lawes were observed But let us now see what is objected against this power of Ruling Elders to voice
and infirme Bishops who cannot labour in the word and doctrine Answ. 1. The Apostle speaketh of Presbyters not of Prelates 2. To rule well importeth as great labour as preaching and somewhat more as I shewed before so that they who cannot labour in preaching cannot labour in ruling neither 3. They who have eviscerate and spent themselves in the work of the Ministry who have been as long as they could stand upon their feet valiant Champions for the truth against the enemies thereof who have served their time according to the will of God without the staine of Heresie Schisme Apostasie or unfaithfulnesse when they become old and infirme they ought not to be the lesse honoured as the impious verdict of this Prelate would have it but so much the more honour ought to be given to their hoare head found in the way of righteousnesse Another Glosse is given by the same King namely that the Apostle would have Ministers not onely to live well but to feed also by the word and doctrine Answ. 1. The rising of the Apostles words doth not concern duties but persons as wee have said before 2. To live well is not to rule well unlesse wee will make all who live godly to rule well 3. Thirdly this glosse doth stil leave a double honor to Ministers that live well though they do not preach We see now our opposites have been trying all windes to fetch upon us but here we leave them betwixt winde and wave â—or this our last argument carrieth us away with full saile CHAP. VIII The testimony of Ambrose for ruling Elders vindicated IF wee looke backe beyond the times of declining unto the first and purest times of the Church wee shall finde ruling Elders to be no new fangled device at Geneva but that the primitive government and policy of the Church hath beene in them restored There is one place of Ambrose which cleereth it sufficiently He writing on 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder saith Vnde Synagoga c. Wherefore both the Iewish Synagogue and after the Church had Senior or Elders without whose counsell nothing was done in the Church which by what negligence it grew out of use I know not except perhaps by the sloth or rather by the pride of the teachers whiâ—es they alone will seeme to be something This sentence is also cited in Glossa ordinar And it sheweth plainely that as the Jewish so the Christian Church had some Elders who though they were not Teachers of the Word yet had a part of the government of the Church upon their shoulders But that this came into desuetude partly through the sloth of the teachers and Ministers of the Word whiles they were not carefull to preserve the ordinances of God and the right way of governing the Church and partly through their pride whilst they would doe all by themselves and have no consorts Vtinam modo nostra redirent In mores tempora priscos But let us heare a triple divination which the non-friends of ruling Elders give forth upon this testimony First Bishop Hall telleth us that it is not Ambrose but a counterfeit who wrote that Commentary upon the Epistles and for this he alledgeth our owne Parker against us The truth is Bellaâ—mine and Scultingius taught him this answer The place of Parker he citeth noâ— in the Margine but I believe the place he meaneth of is de polit Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 13. where he holdeth indeed that the author of these Commentaries was not Ambrose Bishop of Millaine but sheweth withall that he nothing doubteth of the Catholike authority of the Commentaries themselves Hoc vero c. This saith he may befall the best Author whosoever he be that some may ascribe his workes to another But that hee lived before the Councell of Nice this addeth weight to his testimony of the Seniors These Commentaries are commonly cited by our Divines as Ambrose's I finde them in Erasmus his edition both at Collen 1532. and at Paris 1551. acknowledged to bee the genuine workes of Ambrose only the Prefaces before the Epistles are called in question They are also acknowledged in the edition of Costerius at Basile 1555. Sixtuâ— Senensis ascribeth them to Ambrose in like manner The edition of Collen 1616. hath an observation prefixed which repudiateth many of his workes and these Commentaries among the rest Yet the last edition at Paris 1632. hath expunged that observation which they had not done if they had approved the same Howsoever that same observation maketh those Commentaries to bee as old as 372. or 373. Perkins in his preparative before his demonstration of the probleme calleth in question the Commentary upon the Hebrewes but no more Rivet sheweth that these who reject them doe neither give good reasons for their opinion neither yet doe agree among themselves Bellarmine ascribing them to Hilarius Diaconus Maldonat to Remigius Lugdunensis the Censors of Lovaine to the Author of the questions of the old and new Testament I beleeve that Cooke in his Censura Scriptorum veterum hath touched the true cause why these Commentaries are so much called in question which is the perfidiousnesse of Papists who when they finde any thing therein which they imagine to bee for their advantage then they cry Saint Ambrose saith thus but when they finde any thing therein which maketh against them then they say as Hall doth It is not Ambrose but a counterseit I must confesse that Hall is wiser in disclaiming the same then his fellowes in acknowledging them yet because he found that the Testimony may bee of force though not Ambrose's and beside had no proofe for this alledgeance he durst not trust to it but thought upon another answer To proceed then to their next conjecture Bilson Sutcliffe and Doctor Field tell us that Ambrose meant of Bishops who excluded other Clergy men from their consultations and that by the name of Teachers hee might fitly understand the Bishops seeing none but they have power to preach in their owne right others but onely by permission from them This is a most desperate shift for a bad cause For first there is no warrant neither from Scripture nor Antiquity to distinguish Bishops from other Ministers of the Word by the name of Teachers Secondly as for that reason alledged that none but Bishops have power to preach in their owne right it is contrary to that which Field himselfe saith in the very next Chapter where he holdeth that Presbyters are equall with Bishops in the power of order and that they may preach and minister the Sacraments by vertue of their order as well as Bishops Thirdly neither did the advising of Bishops with Presbyters cease in Ambrose his time For as Field himself noteth out of the fourth Councell of Carthage which was holden shortly after Ambrose his writing hereof all sentences of Bishops were declared to bee void which were not confirmed by the presence of their Clergy Let us also
Senatum nostrum coetum Presbyterorum cum ergo inter caetera etiam senes â—udea perdiderit quomodo poterit habere concilium quod proprie Seniorum est And what sense shall we give to these words unlesse we say it is imported that both the Jewish and the Christian Church had such an Eldership as we plead for Else why did both hee and Basil make such a parallell betwixt the Jewish and the Christian Church in the point of Elders Surely if we understand by the Elders of the Christian Church whereof they speake the Ministers of the Word alone wee must also understand by the Elders of the Jewish Church whereof they speake the Priests which no man will imagine Eusebius in his History citeth Dionysiuâ— Alexandrinus relating his disputes with the Chiliasts after this manner When I was at Arsenoiâ—a where thou knowest this doctrine first sprung c. I called together the Elders and Teachers inhabiting those villages there being present also as many of the brethren as were willing to come and I exâ—orted them publikely to the search of this doctrine c. By the Teachers here are meant the Pastors or Ministers of the Word who are most frequently called by the Fathers Teachers or Doctors neither can it bee supposed that there were any Teachers besides the Pastors in these rurall villages which notwithstanding we see had beside their Pastors or Teachers Elders also Augustine writeth his 137. Epistle to those of his owne Church at Hippon whom he designeth thus Dilectissimis â—ratribus clero senioribus universae plebi Ecclesiae Hipponenâ—is cui servio in dilectione Christs To my welbeloved brethren the Clergy the Elders and the whole people of the Church at Hippon whom I serve in the love of Christ. Hee putteth Elders or Seniors in the middle betwixt the Clergy and the people as distinct from both and yet somewhat participant of both Isidorus Hispalensis speaking of the prudence and discretion which Pastors should observe in teaching of the Word giveth them this advise among others Prius docâ—ndi sunt Seniores plebis ut per â—os infra posâ—tifacilius doceantur The Elders of the people are to bee first taught that by them such as are placed under them may be taught the more easily Origen speaking of the tryall of such as were to bee admitted members of the Church saith Nonnulli praepositi sunt c. There are some Rulers appointed who may enquire concerning the conversation and manners of these thâ—t are admitted that they may debarre from the Congregation such as commit filthinesse In the acts of the 5. Councell of Toledo according to the late editions we read that Cinthila whom others call Chintillanus came into that Councell cum optimatibus Senioribus palatii sui But Lorinus hath found in some ancient copy Cum optimatibus Senioribus populi sui with the Nobles and the Elders of his people I would know who were these Elders of the people distinguished from the Nobles These things may suffice from antiquity to give some evidence that the office of ruling Elders is not Calvins new fangled devise at Geneva as our adversaries are pleased to call it but for further confirmation of this point Voetius disp 2. de Senio and before him Iustellus in annot notis in cod Can. Eccles. Afric Can. 100. hath observed sundry other pregnant testimonies from antiquity for ruling Elders especially out of these notable records Gesta puâ—gationis Caeciliani Faelicis to be seen in the Anna's of Baronius An. 103. and in Albaspinaeus his edition of Optatus These testimonies I have here set downe in the Margine From which passages it is apparant that in the dayes of Ambrose these Seniors were neither in all places nor altogether growne out of use but that both in the Easterne and Westerne Churches manifest footsteps of the same remained neither is his testimony before alledged repugnant hereunto for we may understand his meaning to be either that in some places or that in some sort they were growne out of use because peradventure the Teachers beganne to doe somethings without their counsell and advice which in former times was not so Bilson answereth two waies to the testimony from the 137. Epist. of August and belike hee would have answered in the same manner to these other testimonies he saith we may understand by these Seniors either the better part of the Clergy or the Senators Rulers of the City That they were neither Bishops nor preaching Presbyters nor Deacons it is manifest for they are distinguished from all these In act purgat Cacil Fal. and they are called by Isiâ—ore and Pâ—rpurius Seniores plebis Besides it were strange if August Bishop of Hippo writing to his Clergy should distinguish either the Deacons from the Presbyters by the name of the Clergy which was common to both or some preaching Presbyters from other preaching Presbyters by the name of Seniors On the other part that they were not Magistrates of Cities it is no lesse plaine for they are called Seniores Ecclesiae and Ecclesiastici viri they instructed the people and had place in judging of causes Ecclesiasticall But elsewhere Bilson taketh upon him to prove that those of the Clergie who were by their proper name called Presbyters were also called Seniores as those who came neerest to the Bishop in degree wisedome and age And this he proveth by a testimony of Ambrose Viduarum ac virginum domos nisi â—isitandi gratia Iuniores ad re non est opus hoc cum Senioribus hoc est cum Episcopo vel sigravior est causa cum Presbyteris Answ. 1. Here the Seniors are the Bishop which is neither good sense nor any thing to his purpose 2. Hee hath left out a word without which the sentence cannot be understood and that is vel Ambrose saith Hoc est vel â—um Episcopo c. and so the words may suffer a threefold sense for either Seniores is here a name of age or of office If it bee a name of age as may bee presumed by the opposition thereof to Iuniores then the meaning of Ambrose is that young men should not goe into the houses of virgins or widowes except it bee with some men of age and these to bee the Bishop or the Presbyters If â—t be a name of office theâ— may wee either understand that by the Presbyters he meaneth ruling Elders and by the Bishop the Pastor of any particular Church for if Whitaker be not deceived Pastâ—rs have the name of Bishops not onely in Sâ—â—â—pruâ—e but in the ancient Church also Or that hee comprehendeth under the order of Elders not onely the Preaching Presbyters but the Bishop also who was chiefe among them By the first sense Bilson doth gaine nothing by the other two hee hath worse then nothing for any of them destroyeth his chiefe grounds CHAP. X. The consent of Protestant Writers and
matters the matters of law and judgement which are called the Lords matters because the Lord was the author of their civill lawes what a crazie device is this did not matters of peace and warre come under the civill lawes which God had delivered to the Jewes as well as any matter of judgement betwixt man and man and what can bee more plaine then that the Lords matters or things pertaining to God when they are differenced from other matters are ever understood to bee matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Quapropter wherefore saith Iunius the Readers are to be warned whosoever they bee that consult the histories of ancient times that where they read the name Synedâ—tum they wisely observe whether the civill Assembly or the Ecclesiastical be meant of because that name was confused and indistinct after the times of Antiochus But notwithstanding that in these latter times all good order had much degenerate and growne to confusion yet it seemeth to me that even in the dayes of our Saviour Christ the Civill and Ecclesiasticall courts remained distinct let me say my opinion with all mens leave and under correction of the more learned that night that our Lord was betrayed he was led to the Hall of Cajaphas where there was holden an Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim which asked Jesus of his Disciples and of his doctrine received witnesse against him and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy Mat. 27.57 Mark 14.53.55 Ioh. 18.19 Nothing I finde in this Councell why we should think it civill for as touching the smiting and buffeting of Christ Mat. 26.67 Luk 22.63 some think it was by the servants of the high Priests and Elders after that they themselves had gone home left the Councell howsoever it was done tumultuously not judicially and tumults may fall forth in any Judicatory whether civill or Ecclesiastical As for the sentence which they gave Mat. 26.66 He is guilty of death it proveth not that this was a civill Court for just so if an incestuous person should bee convict before an Assembly of our Church the Moderator might ask the Assembly what thinke ye and they might well answer He is guilty of death away with him to the Magistrate Shortly then the matter debated in this nocturnall Councell was meerly Ecclesiasticall and the accusation of sedition and making himselfe a King were not spoken of till he was brought before Pâ—â—at But there was another Sanedrim convocat in the morning Mat 27 1. Mark 15.1 Luk 22 66. and this seemes to have been not Ecclesiasticall but Civill 1. because they meddle not with the triall of his doctrine nor any examination of witnesses thereanent only they desire to heare out of his own mouth that which hee had confessed in the other Councell viz. that he was the Christ the Son of God whereupon they take counsell how they might deliver him to Pilate which was the end of their meeting 2. Mâ—â—k saith They bound him and carried him awâ—y to Pilate 3. The Ecclesiasticall Councell had already done that which they thought pertained to them for what should they have convened again Some say that aâ—l the high Priests Scribes and Elders were not present at that nocturnall councell and that therefore they convened more fully in the morning But that the nocturnall Councell was fully convened it is manifest from Mat. 26.59 Mark 14.53.55 4. This last Councell led Jesus away to Pilâ—te and went themselves with him to accuse him before Pilate of sedition and of making himselfe a King Luk. 23.1.2 Mat. 27.12 5. They complain that the power of capitall punishment was taken from them by the Romans importing that otherwise they might have put him to death by their law Ioh. 18.31 Now D. Fields last reason is For that all Fathers or Councels mentioning Elders place them betwixt Bishops and Deacons and make them to be Clergy men and that in the Acts where the Apostles are said to have constitute Elders in every Church Pastors are meant is strongly confirmed from Act. 20.17.28 where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are commanded to feed the flocke of Christ over which they were appointed over-seers whence it followeth inevitably that they were Pastors We answer 1. Ambrose speaketh of Elders which were not Pastors 2. Beza Gualther expound the place Act. 14.23 where the Apostles are said to have ordained Elders through every Church of ruling as well as preaching Elders 3. As for that which he alledgeth from Act. 20. Beza Iunius and the Professors of Leyden hold that the names of Bishops and Pastors are common both to ruling and preaching Elders and that the Scripture giveth these names to both howsoever in Ecclesiastical use for distinctioÌ„s cause they are appropriate to teaching Elders Surely the ruling Elder both overseeth the flocke and feedeth the same both by discipline and by private admonition and for these respects may bee truly called both Bishop and Pastor 4. How small reason hee hath to boast of the Fathers we have already made it to appeare 5. It is a begging of the question to reason from the appropriation of the name of Elders to the Pastors CHAP. XII The extravagancies of Whitgift and Saravia in the matter of ruling Elders THese two Disputers doe not as D. Field altogether oppose the government of ruling Elders but with certain restrictions about which notwithstanding they differ betwixt themselves â—hitgift alloweth of ruling Elders under a Tyrant but not under a Christian Magistrate but â—ayeth they cannot be under an Infidell Magistrate Me thinkes J see here Sampsons Foxes with their tailes knit together and a firebrand betwixt them yet their heads looking sundry waâ—es To begin with Whitgift he saith in one place I know that in the primitive church they had in every church seniors to whom the Government of the Congregation was committed but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrate c. In another place My reason why it the Church may not bee governed under a Christian Magistrate is it may under a Tyrant is this God hath given the chiefe authority in the government of the Church to the Christian Magistrate which could not bee so if your Seigniory might aswell retaine their authority under a Christian Prince and in the time of peace is under a Tyrant and in the time of persecution for tell me I pray you what authority Ecclesiasticall remaineth to the civill Magistrate where this Seigniory is established Hee who pleaseth may find this opâ—â—ion largely consuted by Beza de Presbyterio contra Erasmum and by I. B. A. C. polit civil Eccles. Jn the meane while I answer First T. C. had made a sufficient Reply hereunto which Whitgift here in his defence should have confuted but hath not viz. That if the Seniors under a Tyrant had medled with any Office of a Magistrate then there had beene some cause why a godly Magistrate being in the Church the Office of a Senior or at least so much as