such names but were called Judges 3. Our Saviour distinguisheth the Synagogicall Courts from the civill Courts of judgement in Cities calling the one Councells the other Synagogues Matth. 10.17 4. The beating and scourging in the Synagogues was an errour and abuse of the later times the corrective power of those Consistories being properly spirituall and ending in excommunication Jo. 16.2 Isai. 66.5 the liberty of which spirituall censures the Romans did permit to the Jewes together with the liberty of their religion after they had taken away their civill Jurisdiction 5. Civill excommunication is an unknowne word and his reason for it is no lesse unknowne for where he hath read that Christ or any of his Disciples were excommunicate out of the Synagogues and yet had free accesse to the Temple I cannot understand if it be not in the Gospell of Nicodemus I read Luke 4.28.28 that Christ was in a great tumult cast out of the City of Nazareth but this I hope no man will call excommunication The blinde man Joh. 9.34 was indeed excommunicated out of the Synagogue but wee no where read that hee was thereafter found in the Temple we read of Christs walking in Solomons porch Jo. 10.23 but that the blinde man was then with him it can never be proved and if it could it should not import any permission or leave given to excommunicate persons to enter into the Temple but that some were bold to take this liberty 6. The casting out of the Synagogue cannot be called civil excommunication because the communion and fellowship of the Jewes in the Synagogue was not civill but sacred they met for the worship of God and not for civill affaires 7. If by civill excommunication he meane banishment or casting out of the City for I conceive not what other thing this strange word can import then how doth he suppose that they had still free accesse to the Temple who were so excommunicated for this importeth that they were still in the City Wee have now evinced an Inferiour Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes Come we next to the supreame Court That there was an high Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim distinct from the Civill Sanedrim is observed by Pelargus on Deut. 17. and Sâ—pingius ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 261. seq Beside many others cited before part 1. chap. 11. And that it was so wee prove from three places of the old Testament to passe other places from which certaine collections may be had to the same purpose First we finde Deut. 17. a distinction of two supreame Judicatories to bee set in the place which the Lord should choose to put his name there the one of the Priests Leviâ—s the other of the Judges unto these two supreame Courts the Lord appointed all matters which were too hard for the inferiour Judges in the Cities of the Land to bee brought and determined by their authority and the sentence of the Priests or of the Judges to be obeyed both by the parties and by the inferiour Judges under pain of death v. 8.9.10.11.12 To this Sutlivius answereth that there is only one Sanedrim in that place which was civill as appeareth by their judging of the causes of blood and their receiving of appellations from the civill Judges mentioned in the preceding Chapter As for the Judge which is spoken of v. 9. and 12. he saith we must understand that it was the high Priest Ans. 1. The disjunctive Or doth distinguish the Judges from the Priests verse 12. as Iunius and Ainsworth doe rightly note upon that place The man that will doe presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge Here a distinction betwixt the Court of the Priests and the Court of the Judges which Lyranus also acknowledgeth 2. The Chaldee readeth Iudges in the plurall By the Judge saith Ainsworth is understood the high Councell or Senat of Judges even as they who are called Priests verse 9. are called the Priest verse 12. and 1 Chron. 4.42 many Captaines are in the Hebrew called an head 3. The high Priest cannot be understood to bee the Judge there spoken of both because there were many Judges as hath beene said and because wee finde not in Scripture that ever the high Priest was called by the name of the Judge 4. Whereas hee objecteth that the causes of blood and other civill causes were judged in this Sanedrim Wee answer there were two severall things in those civill causes the Ius and the factum The Ius was judged in the Court of the Priests because as Bâ—lson teacheth the civill Law of the Jewes was Gods judiciall Law and it was to be sought at the Priests mouth But the fact being meerely civill was judged by the civill Court Sutlâ—vius objecteth that many inconveniences shall follow this distinction 1. Judges are hereby made ignorant of the Law 2. That two Courts of judgement are appointed in one sentence 3. That a Judge the Priest may give out a sentence which he cannot execute 4. That the civill Judges doe in vaine inquire concerning the fact which was before certaine by the Law nam ex facto jus oritur 5. That the civill Judges are dumbe Images which must pronounce according to the sentence of others To the 1. we say that our distinction doth not import that the Judges were ignorant of the Law but that it pertained not to them to judge the meaning of the Law when the same was controverted among the Infeferiour civill Judges this pertained to the Court of the Priests 2. It is no absurdity to expound a disjunctive sentence of two severall Courts 3. He who answereth meerely de jure hath nothing to doe with execution of persons more then theory hath to doe with practice or abstracts with concrets 4. The fact can never be certaine by the sentence de jure It is not the probation but the supposition of the fact whereupon the exposition of the sence of the Law is grounded 5. The cognition of the fact not of the law doâ—h belong to an Inquest in Scotland they are Iudicâ—s factâ— non Iuris Yet no dumbe Imâ—â—es I suppose 6. Hee hath followed the Popish Interpreters in making the Judge to be the High Priest forso they expound it for the Popes cause yet they themselves acknowledge the distinction of Ius and factum See Corn. a lapide in Deut. 17.7 If error had not blinded this mans eyes with whom I deale I should believe hee had beene flumbring when these things fell from his pen. But to proceed as these two Sanedrims were instituted in the Law of Moses so were they after decay or desuetude restored by Iehoshaphat 2 Chro. 19.8 Sutlivius answereth that wee have here only one Sanedrim which judged both the Lords matters and the Kings matters and that it was not an Ecclesiasticall Court because it judged causes of blood and other civill causes wherein appellation was made from
the Judges of the Cities By the Lords matters hee saith are meant criminall and civill causes which were to be judged according to the Law of the Lord and by the Kings matters are meant his patrimony and domesticke affaires Answer 1. The Text distinguisheth two Courts one which medled with the Lords matters whose president was Amariah the chiefe Priest another which medled with the Kings matters whose president was Zebadiah This is so plaine that Bonfierius the Jesuit on Deut. 17. though he maketh the Priests to have beene the Judges yet acknowledgeth two distinct Courts 2 Chron. 19. 2. The words vers 8. must be understood respectively as Didoclavius hath observed which we explaine thus Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehshoaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord that is for causes Ecclesiasticall and repeat of the Levits of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for controversies about civill matters saith Piscator So that some of them were appointed to judge the one and some of them to judge the other which proveth not either that the Courts were one or that the same men sate in both but only that some of the Priests and some of the Fathers of Israel were in both 3. The Lords matters Lavater and Piscator expound to be matters Ecclesiasticall the Kings matters to be things civill and this exposition comprehendeth all things which did fall within the power of those Courts But Sutlivius glosse doth not so for there were sundry things to be judged which were neither the Kings domesticke affaires not yet causes criminall or civill such as were questions about vowes questions about the meaning of the Law and judging betwixt the holy and the prophane betwixt that which was cleane and that which was uncleane These and such like Ecclesiasticall causes he leaveth out and they are indeed left out of the power of the civill Sanedrim and reserved to the other for in such controversies the Priests were to stand in judgement Ezech. 44.23.24 Lastly it is not to be thought that the high Sanedrim should neede to be troubled with the Kings domesticke affaires farre lesse that this should be made the one halfe of their commission Now as wee have the institution of these two supreame Courts Deuter. 17. and the restitution of them both 2 Chron. 19. so have we an example of both Jerem. 26. For first Ieremiah was condemned as worthy of death because hee had spoken against the Temple and the holy place verse 8.11 and herein saith Oecolampadius on that place hee was a Type of Christ against whom it was pronounced in the Councell of the chiefe Priests and Elders He is guilty of death So did this Ecclesiasticall Court conclude agâ—iâ—st Ieremy He is worthy of Death yet the câ—nâ—rary was concluded in the civill Sanedrim verse 10.16 This man say they is not worthy to dye for he hath spoken to us in the Name of the Lord our God As much as to say you Priests have given sentence de jure against Ieremiah but we finde he is not guilty of the fact whereof he is accused for he hath spoken nothing but the truth which the Lord sent him to speake therefore as you pronounced him worthy of death upon supposition of the fact wee now pronounce that he is not worthy of death because wee finde him blamelesse of the fact Sutclivius denieth that the Priests were Iudices Iuris and the Princes Iudices facti only the Princes did against the will of the Priests set Ieremiah free whom they had destinated to death But say I he must either deny that Ieremiah was judged in two severall Courts or not if he deny it the Text is against him for that hee was judged in the Court of the Princes it is plaine from verse 10.16 and that hee was judged in the Court of the Priests is plaine also from verse 8.9 Where we finde the Priests comming together neither to reason with Ieremiah for they had no such purpose as to give him leave to speake for himselfe nor yet to accuse him for that they do before the Princes v. 11. Therefore it was to give sentence for their part against him which they did but if he grant that sentence was given in two Courts I would gladly know what difference could bee made betwixt the one sentence and the other except that difference de jure and de facto especially the same suting the Text so well as hath beene said Of the vestigies of those two supreame Courts still remaining in some sort distinct in the daies of Christ I have spoken before And now to proceed Wee have proved the Antecedent of this our present Argument concerning distinct Ecclesiasticall Courts among the Jewes and the subjection of the lower unto the higher of the Synagogue unto the Sanedrim But we have yet more to doe for the consequence of our Argument is also denyed both by the Prelaticall faction and by others whom wee are more sorry to contradict holding that reasons fetcht from the Jewish Church doe better fat the Prelats then the Consistorians howsoever now to fetch the forme of Government for the Church from the Church of the Jewes were say they to revive the old Testament To me it seemeth strange that both the one side and the other doe when they please reason from the formes of the Jewish Church and yet they will not permit us to reason in like manner The former goe about to prove the Prelacy by the high Priesthood and the lawfull use of Organs in the Church from the like in the Temple of Solomon The latter doe argue that a Congregation hath right not only to elect Ministers but to ordaine them and lay hands on them because the people of Israel laid hands on the Levits That the maintainance of the Ministers of the Gospell ought to bee voluntary because under the Law God would not have the Priests and Levits to have any part or inheritance in the Land of Canaan but to be sustained by the Offerings and Altars of the Lord. That the power of excommunication is in the body of the Church because the Lord laid upon all Israel the duty of removing the uncleane and of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passover Is it right dealing now to forbid us to reason from the forme of the Jewes I will not use any further expostulation but let the Reader judge The truth is this even as that which is in a childe as he is a childe agreeth not to a man yet that which is in a childe as he is animal rationale agreeth also to a man so what wee finde in the Jewish Church as it was Jewish or in infancy and under the pedagogy of the Law agreeth not indeed to the Christian Church But whatsoever the Jewish Church had as it was a politicall Church or
Galat. 6.1 to visite the sicke Matth. 25.36.40 to reconcile those who are at variance Matth. 5.9 to contend for the truth and to answer for it Iude v. 3. 1 Pet. 3.15 All which are incumbent to the ruling Elder by the authority of his calling To conclude then the calling of ruling Elders consisteth in these two things 1. To assist and voyce in all Assemblies of the Church which is their power of jurisdiction 2. To watch diligently over the whole flock all these wayes which have been mentioned and to doe by authority that which other Christians ought to doe in charity which is their power of order And the Elder which neglecteth any one of these two whereunto his calling leadeth him shall make answer to God for it For the Word of God the Discipline of this Kirke the bonds of his owne calling and covenant doe all binde sinne upon his soule if either hee give not diligence in private by admonishing all men of their duty as the case requireth or if he neglect to keepe either the Ecclesiasticall Court and Consistory within the Congregation where his charge is or the Classicall Presbyterie and other Assemblies of the Church which he is no lesse bound to keepe then his Pastor when he is called and dessigned thereunto CHAP. III. The first Argument for ruling Elders taken from the Iewish Church HAving shewed what ruling Elders are it followeth to shew Scripture and Divine right for them Our first Argument is taken from the governement and pollicy of the Jewish Church thus Whatsoever kinde of office-bearers the Jewish Church had not as it was Jewish but as it was a Church such ought the Christian Church to have also But the Jewish Church not as it was Jewish but as it was a Church had Elders of the people who assisted in their Ecclesiasticall government and were members of their Ecclesiasticall Consistories Therefore such ought the Christian Church to have also The Proposition will no man call in question for quod competit alicui qua tali competit omni tali That which agreeth to any Church as it is a Church agreeth to every Church I speake of the Church as it is a politicall body and setled Ecclesiasticall Republike Let us see then to the Assumption The Jewish Church not as it was a Church but as it was Jewish had an high Priest typisying our great high Priest Jesus Christ. As it was Jewish it had Musitians to play upon Harpes Psalteries Cymbals and other Musicall Instruments in the Temple 1 Chron. 25.1 concerning which hear Bellarmines confession de bon oper lib. 1. cap. 17. Iustinus saith that the use of instruments was granted to the Iewes for their imperfection and that therefore such instruments have no place in the Church Wee confesse indeed that the use of musicall instruments agreeth not alike with the perfect and with the imperfect and that therefore they beganne but of late to be admitted in the Church But as it was a Church and not as Jewish it had foure sorts of ordinary office-bearers Priests Levites Doctors and Elders and we conformablie have Pastors Deacons Doctors and Elders To their Priests and Levits Cyprian doth rightly liken our Pastors and Deacons for howsoever sundry things were done by the Priests and Levites which were typicall and Jewish onely yet may we well parallell our Pastors with their Priests in respect of a perpetuall Ecclesiasticall office common to both viz. the Teaching and governing of the people of God Mal. 2.7 2 Chron. 19.8 and our Deacons with their Levits in respect of the cure of Ecclesiasticall goods and of the work of the service of the house of God in the materialls and appurtenances thereof a function likewise common to both 1 Chro. 26.20 23.24.28 The Jewish Church had also Doctors and Schooles or Colledges for the preservation of true Divinity among them and of tongues arts and sciences necessary thereto 1 Chron. 15.22.27 2 King 22.14 1 Sam. 19.20 2 Kings 2.3.5 Act. 19.9 These office-bearers they had for no typicall use but wee have them for the same use and end for which they had them And all these sorts of office-bearers among us wee doe as rightly warrant from the like sorts among them as other whiles wee warrant our baptizing of Infants from their circumcising of them our Churches by their Synagogues c. Now that the Jewish Church had also such Elders as wee plead for it is manifest for besides the Elders of the Priests there were also Elders of the people joyned with them in the hearing and handling of Ecclesiasticall matters Jer. 19.1 Take of the ancients of the people and of the ancients of the Priests The Lord sending a message by the Prophet would have a representative body of all Judah to be gathered together for receiving it as Tremellius noteth So 2 Kings 6.32 Elisha sate in his house and the Elders sate with him We read 2 Chron. 19.8 That with the Priests were joyned some of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel to judge Ecclesiasticall causes and controversies And howsoever many things among the Jewes in the latter times after the captivity did weare to confusion and misorder yet we finde even in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles that the Elders of the people still sate and voyced in Councell with the Priests according to the ancient forme as is cleare from sundry places of the new Testament Matth. 16.21 and 21.23 and 26.57.59 and 27.1.12 Mark 14 43. Luke 22.66 Acts 4.5 This is also acknowledged by the Roman Annalist Baronius who confesseth further That as this was the forme among the Jewes so by the Apostles was the same forme observed in their times and Seniors then admitted into Councels Saravia himselfe who disputeth so much against ruling Elders acknowledgeth what hath been said of the Elders of the Jewes Seniores quidem invenio in Consessu Sacerdotum veteris Synagoga qui Sacerdotes non erant I finde indeed saith hee Elders in the Assembly of the Priests of the old Synagogue which were not Priests Et quamvis paria corum essent suffragia authoritas in omnibus sufragiis sacerdotum cum suffragiis Sacerdotum c. And although saith hee their suffrages and authority in all judgements were equall with the suffrages of the Priests c. But what then thinke yee hee hath to say against us Hee saith that the Elders of the Jewes were their Magistrates which in things pertaining to the externall government of the Church ought not to have been debarred from the Councell of the Priests more then the Christian Magistrate ought now to bee debarred from the Synods of the Church Now to prove that their Elders were their civill Magistrates hee hath no better argument then this That the Hebrew word Zaken which is turned Elder importeth a chiefe man or a Ruler We answer First this is a bold conjecture which hee hath neither warranted by divine nor by humane testimonies
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