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
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
knoâ—ledge â—nd at least tacite consent of the Congregation it selfe then doe we not onely sufficiently and abundantly preserve the liberty of the Congregation while as not the Pastor or Pastors thereof alone but sundry Ruling Elders also representing the Congregation doe manage the affaires aforesaid the Congregation withall understanding thereof and consenting thereto Tacitè if not Expressè I doe not thinke but those of the Separation at this time will easily assent to this resolution and reconcilement of the controversie and so much the rather because I beleeve they themselves doe seclude from the exercise of jurisdiction in the Congregation both children under age because of their defect of Judgement and women because they are forbidden to speake in the Church and whether they seclude any other I know â—ot but since according to their owne Tenets some must be secluded and the power given to the Church must in the exercise of it be restrained to some in the Church it is better to say with Aegidius Hunnius that when Christ remitteth us to the Church Mat. 18.17 He meaneth the prime and chiefe Members which represent the Church that is Pastors aâ—d Elders then to say that he sendeth us to the whole body of the Church One scruple more may peradventure remaine They will say it is well that we require the churches consent before any waighty matter which concerneth all be finished but what if this consent be not had Whether may the Eldership cut off an offender renitente Ecclesia For their satisfaction is this also wee say with Zepperus Quod si Ecclesia c. But if the Church saith he will not approve the sentence of Excommunication nor hold it valid and they see many disagreeing among themselves and schismes and greater evills in the Church to follow this sentence of Excommunication the Elders shall not proceed to Excommunication but shall patiently suffer what cannot with the good leave of the church be amended In the meane while they shall publikely and privately admonish and exhort So saith Zanchius that without the consent of the church no man ought to be excommunicated The B. of Spalato and before him Augustine hath given the reason hereof because the end of excommunication cannot be attained if the Church doe not consent thereto for the end is that the offender may bee taken with feare and shame when he findeth himselfe abhorred and accursed by the whole Church so that it shall be in vain to excommunicate him from whom the Multitude in the Church refuse to abstract their communion I conclude that in such cases though the Pastors and Elders have the power of jurisdiction it is not to exercise the same CHAP. II. Of the independencies of the Elderships of particular Congregations WEE have now rolled away one stone of offence but there is another in our way It were most strange if the collective body of a Congregation consisting it may bee of 10 20 30 or 40 persons according to the grounds of these with whom we deale should bee permitted to exercise independently all Eccleasisticall Jurisdiction but it is almost as great a Paradox to say that the representative of every Congregation which is the Eldership therof consisting it may be of a Pastor and two or three Ruling Elders ought independently to exercise the foresaid jurisdiction in all points I am debtor to D. Field for answering one of those questions before propounded concerning Ruling Elders and here it falls in my hand He asketh whether the power of Church-government and jurisdiction doth belong to the Pastor and Elders of every Congregation or to the Pastors and Elders of many Congregations joyned together in a Common Presbytery I beleeve his expectation was that while as we would sayle through betwixt the Caribdis of Episcopall tyranny and the Scylla of popular Anarchy wee should not know hoâ— to direct our course but should certainly either bee swallowed up in the waves of mighty difficulties or split our selves upon hid Rockes of division Our danger I hope is not so great as he did imagine for we hold that the particular Elderships of severall Congregations have their owne power and authority of Church-government but with a subordination unto the common or greater Presbytery whose power is superior and of a larger extent First then we shall take into consideration the bounds of the power of particular Elderships and how the same may be said to be independent and how not for this purpose I shall give foure distinctions out of Parker and to these I shall adde other foure of my owne The first distinction is betwixt things which are proper and peculiar to one Congregation and things which are common to many the former pertaineth to the particular Eldership the latter to the common Eldership Whence it commeth that in Scotland the cases of ordination suspension deposition and Excommunication are determined in the greater Presbyteries because it doth not concerne one Congregation alone but many who be taken into the common Presbytery and who be put out of the samâ— neither doth the Excommunication of a sinner concerne onely one Congregation but the Neighbouring Congregations also among whom as is to be commonly supposed the sinner doth often haunt converse Cyprian speaking of the admission of some who had fallen and who had no recommendation from the Martyrs to be received againe referreth the matter to a common meeting and his reason is because it was a common cause and did not concerne a few nor one church onely See lib. 2. Ep. 14. The second distinction is betwixt Congregations which have a competent and well-qualified Eldership small Congregations who have but few office-bearers and those it may be not sufficiently able for Church-government In this case of insufficiencie a Congregation may not independently by it selfe exercise jurisdiction and not in re propria saith Parker 3. He distinguisheth betwixt the case of right administration and the case of aberration whatsoever liberty a Congregation hath in the former case surely in the latter it must needs be subject and subordinate If particular Elderships doe rightly manage their owne matters of Church-government the greater Presbytery shall not need for a long time it may be for some yeares to intermeddle in any of their matters which wee know by experience in our owne Churches 4. Hee maketh a distinction betwixt the case of appellation and the case de nulla administratione mala praesumpta Though the particular Eldership hath proceeded aright though it consist of able and sufficient men and though it bee in re propria yet if one think himselfe wronged and so appeale then is it made obnoxious to a higher consistory for saith Parker as the Councill of Sardis ordaineth audience must not bee denyed to him who entreateth for it So saith Zepperus speaking of the same purpose cuivis integrum quoque sit ad superiores gradus provocare si in inferioris gradus sententia aut decreto aliquid
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
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