Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversy concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiastical government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlessness of the chief objections made against the Presbyterial government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...
George Gillespie 1613–1648London: printed by E.G. for Richard Whitaker, 1646
[64], 590 p. · 229k words · Wing G744 · ESTC R177416
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
6. Here were also Ecclesiastical Officers, vers. 11. also the Levites shall be officers before you. As before 1 Chro. 23. & 26. some of the Levites were schophtim Judges to give sentence, others schoterim, officers to see that sentence put in execution, and to cause those that were refractory to obey it, (so do the Hebrews distinguish these two words) so it was here also, some of the Levites appointed to judge, V. 8. some to do the part of Officers in point of execution of Ecclesiastical censures, for they could not, nor might not compel men by the civill Sword. The same name is given to military Officers who prosecute the commands of authority, Josh. 1. 10. And so much of this fourth.
6. Here were also Ecclesiasticall Officers, vers. 11. also the Levites shall be officers before you. As before 1 Chro. 23. & 26. some of the Levites were schophtim Judges to give sentence, others schoterim, officers to see that sentence put in execution, and to cause those that were refractory to obey it, (so doe the Hebrews distinguish these two words) so it was here also, some of the Levites appointed to judge, V. 8. some to doe the part of Officers in point of execution of Ecclesiasticall censures, for they could not, nor might not compell men by the civill Sword. The same name is given to military Officers who prosecute the commands of authority, Iosh. 1. 10. And so much of this fourth.
The fifth place which I take to hold forth that distinction of Courts and Jurisdictions is Jerem. 26, where first the Prophet is taken into the Court of the Priests and Prophets, for which the Chaldee readeth Scribes, whose office it was to be Doctors of the law, and to resolve the difficult cases, and in that capacity they were members of Ecclesiastical councils,
. To the same sense saith Diodati, that the Prophets here spoken of, were such as were learned in the law, and had been bred in the Schools and Colleges of the chief Prophets, and in Jeremiahs time were present at Ecclesiastical judgements and assemblies,
. as in Christs […] Scribes and Doctors of the Law used to be, who were somewhat like these Prophets. Menochius and others expound it as the Chaldee doth. In this Court Jeremiah was examined and judged as a false Prophet, V. 8. 9. yet though they had judged him worthy to die, the Court of the Princes acquitteth him as a Prophet of the Lord, who had spoken to them in the name of the Lord, V. 10, 11, 16. That Jeremiahs cause was twice judged in two distinct Courts, and two different sentences upon it, hath been asserted by divers of the Erastian party to prove appeals from Ecclesiastical to Civill courts: to which argument I have elsewhere spoken.
⟨p. 19⟩
Only I take here what they grant, that there were two Courts, and two sentences given, and so it was. The sentence of the Court of the Priests, (as themselves explain it, V. 11.) was this, This man is worthy to die, or as the Hebrew hath it, the judgement of death is for this man. The Chaldee thus, a sin of the judgement of death is upon this man. For (say they) he hath […] so and so; and he that speaketh against this City, and against this holy place is worthy to die. But the sentence •f the Court of the Princes is V. 16. This man is n•t worthy to die, for he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. They do not say to the Priests, Who did put any jurisdiction or authority to judge, in your hands? but they acquit him in point of fact, whom the Court of the Priests had condemned in point of right, as if they had said to the Priests, if Jeremiah were a false Prophet, you had reason to call for justice upon him even unto death: but your judgement hath run upon a false supposition in point of fact, which we do not find proved, but know to be false.
The fifth place which I take to hold forth that distinction of Courts and Jurisdictions is Ierem. 26, where first the Prophet is taken into the Court of the Priests and Prophets, for which the Chaldee readeth Scribes, whose office it was to be Doctors of the law, and to resolve the difficult cases, and in that capacity they were members of Ecclesiasticall councels, Matth. 2. 4. To the same sence saith Diodati, that the Prophets here spoken of, were such as were learned in the law, and had been bred in the Schooles and Colledges of the chiefe Prophets, and in Jeremiahs time were present at Ecclesiasticall judgements and assemblies, 2 Kings 23. 2. as in Christs 〈…〉 Scribes and Doctors of the Law used to be, who were somewhat like these Prophets. Menochius and others expound it as the Chaldee doth. In this Court Ieremiah was examined and judged as a false Prophet, V. 8. 9. yet though they had judged him worthy to die, the Court of the Princes acquitteth him as a Prophet of the Lord, who had spoken to them in the name of the Lord, V. 10, 11, 16. That Ieremiahs cause was twice judged in two distinct Courts, and two different sentences upon it, hath been asserted by divers of the Erastian party to prove appeales from Ecclesiasticall to Civill courts: to which argument I have elsewhere spoken. ⟨p. 19⟩Onely I take here what they grant, that there were two Courts, and two sentenc•s given, and so it was. The sentence of the Court of the Priests, (as themselves explaine it, V. 11.) was this, This man is worthy to die, or as the Hebrew hath it, the judgement of death is for this man. The Chaldee thus, a sinne of the judgement of death is upon this man. For (say they) he hath 〈…〉 so and so; and he that speaketh against this City, and against this holy place is worthy to die. But the sentence •f the Court of the Princes is V. 16. This man is n•t worthy to die, for he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. They doe not say to the Priests, Who did put any jurisdiction or authority to judge, in your hands? but they acquit him in point of fact, whom the Court of the Priests had condemned in point of right, as if they had said to the Priests, if Ieremiah were a false Prophet, you had reason to call for justice upon him even unto death: but your judgement hath runne upon a false supposition in point of fact, which we doe not finde proved, but know to be false.
Wherefore from this place, these two things may appear: 1▪ That the Court of the Priests had not power of capital punishments; for if they had, certainly Jeremiah had been put to death, as Hierom noteth. 2. Yet they had a power to judge of a false Prophet, and judicially to pronounce him to be a false Prophet, and such a one as ought to be punished so and so, according to the Law. That they had such a power, appeareth, 1. from V. 8, 9. where they do not take him to lead him to the Court of the Princes, and there to accuse him; but they take him, so as to give forth their own sentence against him, as against a false Prophet, Thou shalt surely die, say they, why hast thou prophesied in the name of the Lord, &c. Why didst thou dare to pretend the name of God, as if God had sent thee to preach against the Temple and holy City? 2. Jeremiah doth not in all his differences allege that the Priests and Scribes had not power to judge of a false Prophet, or to give sentence against one in such a case. Nor yet did the Princes object this, as hath been said; yet this had been as strong an exception as could have been made against the Priests, if they had assumed a power and authority of judgement, which was without their Sphere, and did not at all belong unto them. ⟨p. 20⟩3. If you compare the sentence of the Priests with the sentence of the Princes, the former is in suo genere, no less judicial, authoritative, and peremptory, than the later: only that was affirmative, this was negative. Finally, let us take for a conclusion of this Argument, that which Mr. Prynne himself in his fourth part of The Sovereign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, pag. 144. tells us out of vindiciae contra Tyrannos, with an approbatory and encomiastic close of his citation. Jeremiah being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Jerusalem, is for this first condemned (citing in the Margin Jerem. 26.) by the Priests and Prophets, that is, by the Ecclesiastical Judgement or Senate: after this by all the people, that is, by the ordinary Judges of the City, to wit, by the Captains of thousands and hundreds: at last by the Princes of Judah: that is, by 71 men sitting in the new porch of the Temple; his cause being made known, he is acquitted.
Wherefore from this place, these two things may appeare: 1▪ That the Court of the Priests had not power of capitall punishments; for if they had, certainly Ieremiah had been put to death, as Hierom noteth. 2. Yet they had a power to judge of a false Prophet, and judicially to pronounce him to be a false Prophet, and such a one as ought to be punished so and so, according to the Law. That they had such a power, appeareth, 1. from V. 8, 9. where they doe not take him to lead him to the Court of the Princes, and there to •ccuse him; but they take him, so as to give forth their owne sentence against him, as against a false Prophet, Thou shalt surely die, say they, why hast thou prophesied in the name of the Lord, &c. Why didst thou dare to pretend the name of God, as if God had sent thee to preach against the Temple and holy City? 2. I•remiah doth not in all his differences alledge that the Priests and Scribes had not power to judge of a false Prophet, or to give sentence against one in such a case. Nor yet did the Princes object this, as hath been said; yet this had been as strong an exception as could have been made against the Priests, if they had assumed a power and authority of judgement, which was without their Sphere, and did not at all belong unto them. ⟨p. 20⟩3. If you compare the sentence of the Priests with the sentence of the Princes, the former is in suo genere, no lesse judiciall, authoritative, and peremptory, than the later: onely that was affirmative, this was negative. Finally, let us take for a conclusion of this Argument, that which Mr. Prynne himselfe in his fourth part of The Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes, pag. 144. tels us out of vindiciae contra Tyrannos, with an approbatory and encomiastick close of his citation. Ieremy being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Jerusalem, is for this first condemned (citing in the Margin Ierem. 26.) by the Priests and Prophets, that is, by the Ecclesiasticall Judgement or Senate: after this by all the people, that is, by the ordinary Judges of the City, to wit, by the Captains of thousands and hundreds: at last by the Princes of Judah: that is, by 71 men sitting in the new porch of the Temple; his cause being made known, he is acquitted.
The sixth place which intimateth an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, is Jerem. 18. 18. where the adversaries of Jeremiah say among themselves, Come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah, for the Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue. The force of their argument, (as not only our Interpreters, but Maldonat also and Sanctius, following Aquinas and Lyra, tell us) stands in this, those who are of greatest authority in the Church, the Priests, Prophets, and Elders, with whom are the Oracles of truth, do contradict Jeremiah, therefore he is a false Prophet. But what was the ground of this consequence? surely the ground was, that which Bullinger and the late English Annotations do observe, namely, the Popish error was also their error, the Church cannot err. But let us yet follow the argument to the bottom. How came they to think the Church cannot err? or what was that Church which they thought infallible? No doubt they had respect to the Law of the Sanhedrin, Deut. 17. 10, 11, 12. And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall •hoose) shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee. According to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the ⟨p. 21⟩judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt […]: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, or to the left; And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest (that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God) or unto the Judge, even that man shall die. From this Scripture misapplied they drew an argument against Jeremiah. Wherein their meaning could not be this, that the doctrine of every individual Priest, or of every individual Scribe, is infallible, (for as the Law now cited did speak of the Sanhedrin, not of individual Priests, so neither the Jews of old nor the Papists after them, have drawn the conceited infallibility so low, as to every particular Priest.) But they mean collectively, and point at an assembly or council of Priests, Wise-men, and Prophets, which (as they apprehended) could not err, and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by Jeremiah:
The sixth place which intimateth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, is Ierem. 18. 18. where the adversaries of Ieremiah say among themselves, Come and let us d•vise devices against Jeremiah, for the Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsell from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue. The force of their argument, (as not onely our Interpreters, but Maldonat also and Sanctius, following Aquinas and Lyra, tell us) stands in this, those who are of greatest authority in the Church, the Priests, Prophets, and Elders, with whom are the Oracles of truth, doe contradict Ieremiah, therefore he is a false Prophet. But what was the ground of this consequence? surely the ground was, that which Bullinger and the late English Annotations doe observe, namely, the Popish error was also their error, the Church cannot erre. But let us yet follow the argument to the bottome. How came they to thinke the Church cannot erre? or what was that Church which they thought infallible? No doubt they had respect to the Law of the Sanhedrin, Deut. 17. 10, 11, 12. And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall •hoose) shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they enforme thee. According to the sen•ence of the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the ⟨p. 21⟩judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt 〈…〉: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, or to the left; And 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 Judge, even that man shall die. From this Scripture misapplyed they drew an argument against Ieremiah. Wherein their meaning could not be this, that the doctrine of every individuall Priest, or of every individuall Scribe, is infallible, (for as the Law now cited did speak of the Sanhedrin, not of individuall Priests, so neither the Jewes of old nor the Papists after them, have drawn the conceited infallibility so low, as to every particular Priest.) But they mean collectively, and point at an assembly or councell of Priests, Wise-men, and Prophets, which (as they apprehended) could not erre, and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by Ieremiah:
for the Law (that is, saith Menochius, the interpretation of the Law) can not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise. Now this was an Ecclesiastical, not a civill Sanhedrin, which may appear thus: First, they do not make mention of the Judge mentioned Deut. 17. (where the Priest & the Judge are distinguished) only they mention the Priest, the Prophet, (for which the Chaldee hath Scribe: which is all one, as to the […] argument for we find both Prophets and Scribes in Ecclesiastical assemblies, as was said before) and the wise. By the wise are meant those that were chief or did excel among the Scribes or Doctors of the Law. So Grotius annot. in Matth. •3. 34. and it may be collected from Jerem. 8. 8, 9. This is certain, that these wise men were Church officers; for as they are […] from the Judges, Isaiah 3. 2. so Jesus Christ speaking of […], and other Ministers of the Gospel, whom he was to send forth, expresseth himself by way of allusion to the Ecclesiastical Ministers of the Jews. Matth 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets, and Wise men, and Scribes, which Luke ch. 11. V. 49. hath thus, I will send them Prophets and Apostles. Secondly, the civill Sanhedrin at this time did (so far as we can find) contradict Jeremiah; but when his cause came afterward before them, Jerem. 26. they show much favour and friendship to him. Thirdly, that which is added, ⟨p. 22⟩come and let us him smite with the tongue: may be three ways read, and every way it sut•th to the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin (whether themselves be the speakers in the Text, or whether the people be the speakers of it, as of that which they would desire and move the Sanhedrin to do in the name of them all) either thus: Let us smite him for the tongue, that is for an Ecclesiastical cause, for false Doctrine. Or thus, Let us smite him in the tongue (so the Septuagint, and Arias Montanus) that is, Let us smite him with an Ecclesiastical censure, and silence him, and discharge him to preach any more to the people. Or thus, Let us smite him with the tongue, that is, with an Ecclesiastical sentence or declaration, smite him not with the Sword (which belonged only to the civill Magistrate) but with the tongue, by declaring him to be a false Prophet, and by determining the case de jure, what ought to be done with him according to the Law.
for the Law (that is, saith Menochius, the interpretation of the Law) can not perish from the Priest, nor counsell from the wise. Now this was an Ecclesiasticall, not a civill Sanhedrin, which may appeare thus: First, they doe not make mention of the Judge mentioned Deut. 17. (where the Priest & the Judge are distinguished) onely they mention the Priest, the Prophet, (for which the Chaldee hath Scribe: which is all one, as to the 〈…〉 argument for we finde both Prophets and Scribes in Ecclesiasticall assemblies, as was said before) and the wise. By the wise are meant those that were chiefe or did excell among the Scribes or Doctors of the Law. So Grotius annot. in Matth. •3. 34. and it may be collected from Ierem. 8. 8, 9. This is cert•ine, that these wise men were Churchofficers; for as they are 〈…〉 from the Judges, Esay 3. 2. so Jesus Christ speaking of 〈…〉, and other Ministers of the Gospel, whom he was to send forth, expresseth himselfe by way of allusion to the Ecclesiasticall Ministers of the Jewes. Matth 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets, and Wise men, and Scribes, which Luke ch. 11. V. 49. hath thus, I will send them Prophets and Apostles. Secondly, the civill Sanhedrin at this time did (so far as we can finde) contradict Ieremiah; but when his cause came afterward before them, Ierem. 26. they shew much favour and friendship to him. Thirdly, that which is added, ⟨p. 22⟩come and let us him smite with the tongue: may be three waies read, and every way it sut•th to the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin (whether themselves be the speakers in the Text, or whether the people be the speakers of it, as of that which they would de•ire and move the Sanhedrin to doe in the name of them all) either thus: Let us smite him for the tongue, that is for an Ecclesiasticall cause, for false Doctrine. Or thus, Let us smite him in the tongue (so the Septuagint, and Arias Montanus) that is, Let us smite him with an Ecclesiasticall censure, and silence him, and discharge him to preach any more to the people. Or thus, Let us smite him with the tongue, that is, with an Ecclesiasticall sentence or declaration, smite him not with the Sword (which belonged onely to the civill Magistrate) but with the tongue, by declaring him to be a false Prophet, and by determining the case de jure, what ought to be done with him according to the Law.
Seventhly, consider another place, Ezech. 7. 26. Then shall they seek a vision of the Prophet: but the Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsel from the ancients. Here again, these are to be looked upon collectively and conjunctly, (not di•tributively and severally) and this I prove from the Text it self, not only because the counsel here sought for, was not to be given by one ancient, but by the ancients, yea i• was a principal part of the curse or judgement, that counsel could not be had from an assembly of ancients or Elders, suppose it might be had from some individual Elders here or there:) but also because the Antithesis in the Text intimateth a disappointment in that thing which was sought after. They shall seek a vision from the Prophet, or (as the Chaldee hath it) discipline from the Scribe. This they shall not find, and why? because the Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsel from the Ancients. It was therefore Consistorial or Synedricall counsel, Judgement, or Discipline, which should be sought, but should not be found. So that though a Prophet of the Lord shall peradventure be found, who can reveal the counsel of the Lord, in a time of general defection, like Micaiah contradicting the 400 Prophets, yet an Ecclesiastical council of Prophets, Scribes, Priests, and Elders, sometime Israels glory, shall turn to be Israels shame, ⟨p. 23⟩and that assembly which did sometime respondere d• jure, and pronounce righteous judgement, and give light in difficult cases, shall do so no more: the very light of Israel shall be darkness; the law and counsel shall perish from them; that is, they shall not find counsel, nor the understanding of the law, saith Sanctius. Polanus upon the place draweth an Argument against the infallibility of counsels, because the law and counsel did perish not only (saith he) from the Priests here and there in the Cities, but also from the high Priest, and the other Priests and Elders, who were together at Jerusalem. If this Text be rightly applied by him (and so it is by other Protestant Writers) to prove against Papists that Councils may err, then here was an Ecclesiastical council.
Seventhly, consider another place, Ezech. 7. 26. Then shall they seek a vision of the Prophet: but the Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsell from the ancients. Here againe, these are to be lookt upon collectively and conjunctly, (not di•tributively and severally) and this I prove from the Text it selfe, not onely because the counsell here sought for, was not to be given by one ancient, but by the ancients, yea i• was a principall part of the curse or judgement, that counsell could not be had from an assembly of ancients or Elders, suppose it might be had from some individuall Elders here or there:) but also because the Antithesis in the Text intimateth a disappointment in that thing which was sought after. They shall seeke a vision from the Prophet, or (as the Chaldee hath it) discipline from the Scribe. This they shall not finde, and why? because the Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsell from the Ancients. It was therefore Consistoriall or Synedricall counsell, Judgement, or Disscipline, which should be sought, but should not be found. So that though a Prophet of the Lord shall peradventure be found, who can reveale the councell of the Lord, in a time of generall defection, like Micaiah contradicting the 400 Prophets, yet an Ecclesiasticall counsell of Prophets, Scribes, Priests, and Elders, sometime Israels glory, shall turn to be Israels shame, ⟨p. 23⟩and that assembly which did sometime respondere d• jure, and pronounce righteous judgement, and give light in difficult cases, shall doe so no more: the very light of Israel shall be darknesse; the law and counsell shall perish from them; that is, they shall not finde councell, nor the understanding of the law, saith Sanctius. Polanus upon the place draweth an Argument against the infallibility of counsels, because the law and counsell did perish not onely (saith he) from the Priests here and there in the Cities, but also from the high Priest, and the other Priests and Elders, who were together at Ierusalem. If this Text be rightly applied by him (and so it is by other Protestant Writers) to prove against Papists that Councels may erre, then here was an Ecclesiasticall councell.
Eighthly, even without Jerusalem and I•da there was a Senate or assembly of Elders, which did assist the Prophets in overseeing the manners of the people, censuring sin, and deliberating of the common affairs of the Church. This C. Bertramus de polit. Jud. c. 16. collecteth from 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house, and the Elders sate with him. I know some think that those Elders were the Magistrates of Samaria, but this I cannot admit, for two reasons. 1. Because Josephus Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 2. calls them Elisha's disciples: and from him Hugo Cardinalis, Carthusianus, and others do so expound the Text. They are called Elishas Disciples, as the Apostles were Christs Disciples, by way of Excellency and eminency: all the disciples or sons of the Prophets were not properly Elders, but those only who were assumed into the Assembly of Elders, or called to have a share in the managing of the common affairs of the Church. 2. Cajetan upon the place gives this reason from the Text it self, to prove that these Elders were spiritual men (as he speaketh) because Elisha asketh them, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? What expectation could there be, that they did see a thing, then secret and unheard of, unless they had been men familiar with God? Now these Elders were sitting close with Elisha in his house. It was not a public or Church assembly for worship, but for counsel, deliberation, and resolution, in some case of difficulty and public concernment. So Tostatus and Sanctius on the place. A parallel ⟨p. 22⟩[…] ⟨p. 23⟩[…] ⟨p. 24⟩place there is, Ezech. 8. 1. I sate in mine house, and the Elders of Judah sate before me. Whether those Elders came to know what God had revealed to the Prophet, concerning the state of Judah and Jerusalem, as Lavater upon the place supposeth, or for deliberation about some other thing, it is nothing like a civill Court, but very like an Ecclesiastical senate. Now if such there was out of Jerusalem, how much more in Jerusalem, where (as there came greater store of Ecclesiastical causes and controversies concerning the sense of the Law, to be judged, so) there was greater store of Ecclesiastical persons •it for government? whatsoever of this kind we find elsewhere, was but a Transsumpt, the Archetype was in Jerusalem.
Eightly, even without Ierusalem and I•da there was a Senate or assembly of Elders, which did assist the Prophets in overseeing the manners of the people, censuring sin, and deliberating of the common affairs of the Church. This C. Bertramus de polit. Jud. c. 16. collecteth from 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house, and the Elders sate with him. I know some think that those Elders were the Magistrates of Samaria, but this I cannot admit, for two reasons. 1. Because Iosephus Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 2. cals them Elishaes disciples: and from him Hugo Cardinalis, Carthusianus, and others doe so expound the Text. They are called Elishas Disciples, as the Apostles were Christs Disciples, by way of Excellency and eminency: all the disciples or sonnes of the Prophets were not properly Elders, but those onely who were assumed into the Assembly of Elders, or called to have a share in the mannaging of the common affaires of the Church. 2. Cajetan upon the place gives this reason from the Text it selfe, to prove that these Elders were spirituall men (as he speaketh) because Elisha asketh them, See ye how this sonne of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? What expectation could there be, that they did see a thing, then secret and unheard of, unlesse they had been men familiar with God? Now these Elders were sitting close with Elisha in his house. It was not a publike or Church assembly for worship, but for counsell, deliberation, and resolution, in some case of difficulty and publike concernment. So Tostatus and Sanctius on the place. A paralell ⟨p. 22⟩〈…〉⟨p. 23⟩〈…〉⟨p. 24⟩place there is, Ezech. 8. 1. I sate in mine house, and the Elders of Iudah sate before me. Whether those Elders came to know what God had revealed to the Prophet, concerning the state of Iudah and Ierusalem, as Lavater upon the place supposeth, or for deliberation about some other thing, it is nothing like a civill Court, but very like an Ecclesiasticall senate. Now if such there was out of Ierusalem, how much more in Ierusalem, where (as there came greater store of Ecclesiasticall causes and controversies concerning the sence of the Law, to be judged, so) there was greater store of Ecclesiastical persons •it for government? whatsoever of this kind we finde elsewhere, was but a Transsumpt, the Archetype was in Ierusalem.
Ninthly, that place Ze•h. 7. 1, 2, 3. helpeth me much. The Jews sent Commissioners unto the Temple, there to speak unto the Priests which were in the house of the Lord of Hosts, and to the Prophets (the Chaldee hath and to the Scribes) saying, Should I weep in the first month, &c. Here is an Ecclesiastical assembly, which had authority to determine controversies concerning the worship of God. Grotius upon the place distinguisheth these Priests and Prophets from the civill Sanhedrin, yet he saith they were to be consulted with, in controverted cases, according to the Law, Deut. 17. 9. If so, then their sentence was authoritative and binding, so far that the man who did presumptuously disobey them, was to die the death, Deut. 17. 12.
Ninthly, that place Ze•h. 7. 1, 2, 3. helpeth me much. The Jews sent Commissioners unto the Temple, there to speake unto the Priests which were in the house of the Lord of Hosts, and to the Prophets (the Chaldee hath and to the Scribes) saying, Should I weepe in the first moneth, &c. Here is an Ecclesiasticall assembly, which had authority to determine controversies concerning the worship of God. Grotius upon the place distinguisheth these Priests and Prophets from the civill Sanhedrin, yet he saith they were to be consulted with, in controverted cases, according to the Law, Deut. 17. 9. If so, then their sentence was authoritative and binding, so far that the man who did presumptuously disobey them, was to die the death, Deut. 17. 12.
Tenthly, let it be considered what is that Moshav Zekenim consessus or Cathedra seniorum, Psal. 107. 32. (for though every argument be not an infallible demonstration, yet cuncta juvant) let them exalt him also in the Congregation (or Church) of the people, and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders. Compare this Text with Psalm 115. 9, 10, 11. as likewise with Psalm 118. 2, 3, 4. In all the three Texts, there are three sorts of persons distinguished, and more especially called upon to glorify God. Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, saith the Text in hand, Psalm 107. 31. for that you have in the other two places, Ye that fear the Lord, &c. for the congregation of the people, you have in the other two places Israel, and the house of Israel. For the Assembly of the Elders, you have in the other Texts, the house of Aaron. I will not here build any thing upon the ⟨p. 25⟩observation of Hugo Cardinalis on Psalm 107. 32. that the congregation of the Princes is not mentioned in this business, because not many mighty, not many noble, &c. One thing I am sure of, there were Elders in Israel, clearly distinct both from the Princes, Judges, and civill Magistrates, Jos. 23. 2. 2 Kings 10. 1. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. and elsewhere. And the parallel Texts afore cited, do couple together these Elders and the house of Aaron, as Pastors and ruling Elders now are; and as the Priests and Elders are found conjoined elsewhere in the old Testament, Exod. 24. 1. Deut. 27. 1. with vers. 9. Ezech. 7. 26. Jer. 19. 1. So Matth. 26. 59. The work also of giving thanks for mercies and deliverances obtained by the afflicted and such as have been in distress (the purpose which the Psalmist hath in hand, extended also to the deliverances of particular persons.) is more especially commended to those who are assembled in an Ecclesiastical capacity. Even as now among our selves, the civill Courts of Justice, or Magistrates and Rulers or Judges assembled by themselves in a politic capacity, use not to be desired to give thanks for the delivery of certain persons from a danger at Sea, or the like. But it were very proper and fit to desire thanks to be returned, 1. by those that fear God; for as we should desire the prayers, so likewise the praises of the Saints. 2. By the Church or Congregation, of which they that have received the mercy are members. 3.
Tenthly, let it be considered what is that Moshav Zekenim consessus or Cathedra seniorum, Psal. 107. 32. (for though every argument be not an inf•llible demonstration, yet cuncta juvant) let them exalt him also in the Congregation (or Church) of the people, and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders. Compare this Text with Psalm 115. 9, 10, 11. as likewise with Psalm 118. 2, 3, 4. In all the three Texts, there are three sorts of persons distinguished, and more especially called upon to glorifie God. Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodnesse, saith the Text in hand, Psalm 107. 31. for that you have in the other two places, Ye that feare the Lord, &c. for the congregation of the peple, you have in the other two places Israel, and the house of Israel. For the Assembly of the Elders, you have in the other Texts, the house of Aaron. I will not here build any thing upon the ⟨p. 25⟩observation of Hugo Cardinalis on Psalm 107. 32. that the congregation of the Princes is not mentioned in this businesse, because not many mighty, not many noble, &c. One thing I am sure of, there were Elders in Israel, clearly distinct both from the Princes, Judges, and civill Magistrates, Ios. 23. 2. 2 Kings 10. 1. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. and elsewhere. And the parallel Texts afore cited, doe couple together these Elders and the house of Aaron, as Pastors and ruling Elders now are; and as the Priests and Elders are found conjoyned elsewhere in the old Testament, Exod. 24. 1. Deut. 27. 1. with vers. 9. Ezech. 7. 26.
By the Eldership, yea (if there be occasion) by a Synod of Elders, who as they ought to watch over the City of God, and to stand upon their watchtower for observing approaching dangers, so they ought to take special notice of exemplary mercies, bestowed upon the afflicted members of the Church, and be an ensample to the flock, in giving thanks, as well as in other holy duties.
By the Eldership, yea (if therebe occasion) by a Synod of Elders, who as they ought to watch over the City of God, and to stand upon their watchtower for observing approaching dangers, so they ought to take speciall notice of exemplary mercies, bestowed upon the afflicted members of the Church, and be an ensample to the flocke, in giving thanks, as well as in other holy duties.
The eleventh place, which seemeth to hold forth unto us an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, is Ezech. 13. 9. where its said of the Prophets that did see vanity, and Divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they inter into the Land of Israel. Where (as Diodati and Grotius observe,) the speech riseth by degrees. 1. they shall not any more be admitted into the assembly or council to have any voice there, as Prophets in those ⟨p. 26⟩days had saith Diodati citing Jer. 26. 7. Secondly, they shall not so much as come into the computation or numbering of the people as members of the Church of Israel. 3. Nay they shall not be permitted to dwell in the holy Land, or to return thither from their captivity; they shall not have so much favour as strangers had, who might come into the holy Land and sojourn there.
The eleventh place, which seemeth to hold forth unto us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, is Ezech. 13. 9. where its said of the Prophets that did see vanity, and Divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they inter into the Land of Israel. Where (as Diodati and Grotius observe,) the speech riseth by degrees. 1. they shall not any more be admitted into the assembly or councell to have any voice there, as Prophets in those ⟨p. 26⟩daies had saith Diodati citing Ier. 26. 7. Secondly, they shall not so much as come into the computation or numbring of the people as members of the Church of Israel. 3. Nay they shall not be permitted to dwell in the holy Land, or to returne thither from their captivity; they shall not have so much favour as strangers had, who might come into the holy Land and sojourne there.
In the first branch, the word translated assembly is [Greek or Hebrew] sod which properly signifieth a secret, and is used for counsel (because counsel ought to be secret) or for the place of counsel, or assembly of Counsellors. Pagnin in his Thesaurus p. 1761. readeth this place with Hierome, in consilio, or otherwise saith he, in concilio. Vatablus: in concilio populi mei non erunt. The Septuagints read [Greek or Hebrew]: that is, those Prophets shall have no hand in the Discipline of my people. The same word they render in other places by [Greek or Hebrew], and [Greek or Hebrew], yea by both these put together, Prov. 20. 19. where for the Hebrew sod, the Septuagints have [Greek or Hebrew]. He that revealeth the secret counsels in the Sanhedrin; and it cohereth well with the preceding Verse, where they mention [Greek or Hebrew], Governments. Sometime they expound the word by an Episcopal (I mean not Prelatical) inspection Job 29. 4. [Greek or Hebrew]. God was an overseer of my house. So that, so far as the Septuagints authority can weigh, that place Ezek. 13. 9. must be understood of the secluding of those Prophets from the Sanhedrin, not from the Civill (in which the Prophets were not members) but from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin.
In the first branch, the word translated assembly is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 sod which properly signifieth a secret, and is used for counsell (because counsell ought to be secret) or for the place of counsell, or assembly of Counsellers. Pagnin in his Thesaurus p. 1761. readeth this place with Hierome, in consilio, or otherwise saith he, in concilio. Vatablus: in concilio populi mei non erunt. The Septuagints read 〈non-Latin alphabet〉: that is, those Prophets shall have no hand in the Discipline of my people. The same word they render in other places by 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, and 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, yea by both these put together, Prov. 20. 19. where for the Hebrew sod, the Septuagints have 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. He that revealeth the secret counsels in the Sanhedrin; and it cohereth well with the preceding Verse, where they mention 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Governments. Sometime they expound the word by an Episcopall (I mean not Prelaticall) inspection Iob 29. 4. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. God was an overseer of my house. So that, so far as the Septuagints authority can weigh, that place Ezek. 13. 9. must be understood of the secluding of those Prophets from the Sanhedrin, not from the Civill (in which the Prophets were not members) but from the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin.
In the twelfth and last place, the new Testament holds out to us an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin: Whether the civill Sanhedrin was wholly taken away by Herod, and another civill Sanhedrin not substitute in the place of that which he took away, but the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin only remaining, as some hold; or whether both did then continue though not so clearly distinct, as others hold: This we find that there was an Ecclesiastical government in the hands of Church-officers; for 1. there was a council of the Priests and Elders and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. & 16. 21. & 21. 23. & 26. 57, 59. & 27. 1. 12. Mark 14. 43. Luke 22. 66. Acts 4. 5. mThe Centurists say that those ⟨p. 27⟩Elders were joined with the Priests in the government of the Church, with Ecclesiastical persons in Ecclesiastical affairs. Which hath been rightly taken for a president of our ruling Elders. 2. That Council is called [Greek or Hebrew] Luke 22. 66. Acts 22. 5. the Presbytery or Eldership: the very name which Paul gives to that assembly of Church-officers, who ordained Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 14. is it credible that the Apostle would transfer the name of a civill Court to signify an Assembly, which was merely Ecclesiastical and not Civill? The very use of the word in this sense by the Apostle, tells us that in his age the word [Greek or Hebrew] was taken in an Ecclesiastical notion only. 3. This Council did examine Jesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine, and received witnesses against him, and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy, Matth. 27. 57. Mark 14. 53, 55. Joh. 18. 19. Hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists, to overthrow their infallibility of Councils: unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth four answers. But it came not once into his thoughts, to reply that this council was civill, not Ecclesiastical, which had been his best answer, if any probability for it. It hath been supposed, both by Protestant, and Popish Writers, that it was an Ecclesiastical Council, such as the controversy is about: otherwise our Argument had been as impertinent, as their answer was insufficient. 4. Our opposites have no evasion here, but that which Bilson, Saravia, and others of the Prelatical party did answer in opposition to ruling Elders; namely, that the Jewish Elders were Judges or Magistrates; But the reply which served then, will serve now:
In the twelfth and last place, the new Testament holds out to us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin: Whether the civill Sanhedrin was wholy taken away by Herod, and another civill Sanhedrin not substitute in the place of that which he took away, but the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin onely remaining, as some hold; or whether both did then continue though not so clearely distinct, as others hold: This we finde that there was an Ecclesiasticall government in the hands of Church-officers; for 1. there was a councell of the Priests and Elders and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. & 16. 21. & 21. 23. & 26. 57, 59. & 27. 1. 12. Marke 14. 43. Luke 22. 66. Acts 4. 5. mThe Centurists say that those ⟨p. 27⟩Elders were joyned with the Priests in the government of the Church, with Ecclesiasticall persons in Ecclesiasticall affaires. Which hath been rightly taken for a president of our ruling Elders. 2. That Councell is called 〈non-Latin alphabet〉Luke 22. 66. Acts 22. 5. the Presbytery or Eldership: the very name which Paul gives to that assembly of Church-officers, who ordained Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 14. is it credible that the Apostle would transfer the name of a civill Court to signifie an Assembly, which was meerely Ecclesiasticall and not Civill? The very use of the word in this sence by the Apostle, tels us that in his age the word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 was taken in an Ecclesiasticall notion onely. 3. This Councell did examine Iesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine, and received witnesses against him, and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy,
mMagdeb Gent. […]. lib. 1. cap 6. Seniors populi videntu• fuisse […] è populo lecti viri, aetate, d ctrina, & vitae p•obitate spectati, gui simul cum Ecclesiasticis […], Templi, […] & […] rerum […] […] Ecclesiae […] […], […] habuerunt.Magdeb Gent. 〈…〉. lib. 1. cap 6. Seniores populi videntu• fuisse 〈…〉 è populo lecti viri, aetate, d ctrina, & vitae p•obitate spectati, gui simul cum Ecclesiasticis 〈…〉, Templi, 〈…〉 & 〈…〉 rerum 〈…〉〈…〉 Ecclesiae 〈…〉〈…〉, 〈…〉 habuerunt.
the Elders are plainly distinguished from Judges, Rulers, and Princes, Jos. 8. 33. & 23. 2. Deut. 5. 23. Jud. 8. 14. 2 Kings 10. 1, 5. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. T•status on Deut. 21. 2. & 22. 15, 16. observeth the same distinction of Judges and Elders. Pelargus on Deu•. 21. 2, 3, 4. observeth the like. That which I say concerning the distinction of Judges and Elders may be confirmed by Halichoth Olam Tract. 1. cap 3. The Judges of Soura, M. Houna, and D. Isaac. The Judges of Phoumbeditha M. Papa the son of Samuel, &c. The Elders of Soura M. Houna and M. Hisda. The Elders of Phoumbeditha Ena and Abimi the son of Rahba. And thus we are taught how to ⟨p. 28⟩under and th•se Gemarick phrases, of the Judges of such a place, and the Elders of such a place, that we may not mistake them as if they were one. 5. Some have also drawn a pattern for the constitution of Synods, from that Council, Acts 4. 5, 6. where we find assembled together Rulers, […], Elders, Scribes, according to which pattern we have in our Synods, 1. the civill […] to preside in the order of proceedings, for preventing tumults, injuries, disorders, and to assist and protect the Synod. 2. Pastors of Churches. 3. Doctors from universities, answering to the Scribes or Doctors of the Law. 4. Ruling Elders who assist in the Government of the Church. 6. After that Judea was redacted into a Province, and the Romans having kept in their own hands, not only the power of life and death John 18. 31. but all judgement in whatsoever civill, or criminal offences, falling out among the Jews, meant by matters of wrong or wicked lewdness, Acts 18. 14. And having left to the Jews no government, nor any power of judgement, except in things pertaining to their religion only Ib. verse 15. These six things considered, it is very unprobable (if not unpossible) that the Council of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in the New Testament, should be no Ecclesiastical Court, but a temporal and civill Magistracy. The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. reckon that Council for an Ecclesiastical Court, distinct from civill Magistracy: and they propose these two to be distinctly treated of, Acta coram Pontificibus seu Magistratu Ecclesiastico, (and here they bring in the council of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes,) And Actio coram Pilato seu magistratu politico.
the Elders are plainly distinguished from Judges, Rulers, and Princes, Ios. 8. 33. & 23. 2. Deut. 5. 23. Iud. 8. 14. 2 Kings 10. 1, 5. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. T•status on Deut. 21. 2. & 22. 15, 16. observeth the same distinction of Judges and Elders. Pelargus on Deu•. 21. 2, 3, 4. observeth the like. That which I say concerning the distinction of Judges and Elders may be confirmed by Halichoth Olam Tract. 1. cap 3. The Judges of Soura, M. Houna, and D. Isaac. The Iudges of Phoumbeditha M. Papa the sonne of Samuel, &c. The Elders of Soura M. Houna and M. Hisda. The Elders of Phoumbeditha Ena and Abimi the sonne of Rahba. And thus we are taught how to ⟨p. 28⟩under and th•se Gemarick phrases, of the Judges of such a place, and the Eld•rs of such a place, that we may not mistake them as if they were one. 5. Some have also drawne a patterne for the constitution of Synods, from that Councell, Acts 4. 5, 6. where we finde assembled together Rulers, 〈…〉, Elders, Scri•es, according to which patterne we have in our Synods, 1. the civill 〈…〉 to preside in the order of proceedings, for preventing tumults, injuries, disorders, and to assist and protect the Synod. 2. Pastors of Churches. 3. Doctors from universities, answering to the Scribes or Doctors of the Law. 4. Ruling Elders who assist in the Government of the Church. 6. After that Iudaea was redacted into a Province, and the Romans having keptin their owne hands, not only the power of life and death Iohn 18. 31
I know Erastus lib. 3. cap. 2. and lib. 4. cap. 4. though he confess plainly that the Jewish Sanhedrin mentioned in the Gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, had only power of judging causes belonging to Religion, and that the Romans did leave them no power to judge of civill injuries; yet he holdeth, that in these causes of Religion, the Sanhedrin had power not only of imprisoning, and scourging, but even of death it self. And so endeavours to make it a temporal or civil Magistracy, (which Mr Prynne also doth vindic. page 4, 5. yet he speaketh dubiously of their power of capital punishments.) ⟨p. 29⟩But this is confuted by the reasons which I have given. Whereunto I further add these few animadversions.
I know Erastus lib. 3. cap. 2. aud lib. 4. cap. 4. though he confesse plainly that the Jewish Sanhedrin mentioned in the Gosspell, and in the Acts of the Apostles, had onely power of judging causes belonging to Religion, and that the Romans did leave them no power to judge of civill injuries; yet he holdeth, that in these causes of Religion, the Sanhedrin had power not onely of imprisoning, and scourging, but even of death it selfe. And so endeavours to make it a temporall or civil Magistracy, (which Mr Prynne also doth vindic. page 4, 5. yet he speaketh dubiously of their power of capitall punishments.) ⟨p. 29⟩But this is confuted by the reasons which I have given. Whereunto I further adde these few animadversions.
1. The strongest proof which Erastus brings out of Josephus antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. which (as he allegeth) puts the thing out of all controversy, is a very weak and insufficient proof. Josephus tells us in the close of that Chapter, that after the death of Herod and A chelaus, this was the Jewish Government, [Greek or Hebrew]. This he citeth page 177. and page 178. to prove that the Sanhedrin in Christs time, was a civill Magistracy, having power of the Sword. But I may with a great deal more probability argue contrariwise from these words. Josephus tells us the Constitution and form of the Jewish policy or Government was at that time Aristocratical, but it was an Ecclesiastical Aristocracy, the government was in the hands of the chief Priests. Or thus (if you will) the Jews at that time had a bare name of an aristocracy; they had their [Greek or Hebrew] Optimates, Primates, or Rulers: but it was titulo tenus, all power of civill government being taken from them by the Romans, and the government that was, was Ecclesiastical. That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove, that the Romans did not permit to the Jews capital Judgements: for Josephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportunity after the death of Festus, while Albinus the Successor of Festus, was but yet on his journey toward Judea, did call a Council of Judges ([Greek or Hebrew]) before whom he presented James the brother of Christ, and some others, who were (as guilty of impiety) condemned to be stoned. Which mightily displeased all such as did observe the Laws. Albinus at that time coming from Alexandria, being informed of the thing, and that it was not lawful for Ananus to do any such thing, without the Roman Governor, wrote a chiding and threatening letter to Ananus. And further, the thing being secretly signified by some to King Agrippa, who did also beseech the King to command Ananus to do no such thing again, he having trespassed in this. Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended, that he took away from Ananus the high Priests place, and gave it to Jesus the son of Damneus.
⟨p. 30⟩2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the imprisoning, beating, or scourging, yea taking counsel to kill the Apostles Acts 4, & 5. the stoning of Steven Acts 7.
1. The strongest proofe which Erastus brings out of Iosephus antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. which (as he alledgeth) puts the thing out of all controversie, is a very weake and insufficient proof. Iosephus tels us in the close of that Chapter, that after the death of Herod and A chelaus, this was the Jewish Government, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. This he citeth page 177. and page 178. to prove that the Sanhedrin in Christs time, was a civill Magistracy, having power of the Sword. But I may with a great deale more probability argue contrariwise from these words. Iosephus tels us the Constitution and forme of the Jewish policy or Government was at that time Aristocraticall, but it was an Ecclesiasticall Aristocracy, the government was in the hands of the chiefe Priests. Or thus (if you will) the Jewes at that time had a bare name of an aristocracy; they had their 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Optimates, Primates, or Rulers: but it was titulo tenus, all power of civill government being taken from them by the Romans, and the government that was, was Ecclesiasticall. That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove, that the Romans did not permit to the Jewes capitall Judgements: for Iosephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportunity after the death of Festus, while Albinus the Successour of Festus, was but yet on his journey toward Iudea, did call a Councell of Judges (〈non-Latin alphabet〉) before whom he presented Iames the brother of Christ, and some others, who were (as guilty of impiety) condemned to be stoned. Which mightily displeased all such as did observe the Laws. Albinus at that time comming from Alexandria, being enformed of the thing, and that it was not lawfull for Ananus to doe any such thing, without the Roman Governour, wrote a chiding and threatning letter to Ananus. And further, the thing being secretly signified by some to King Agrippa, who did also beseech the King to command Ananus to doe no such thing againe, he having trespassed in this. Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended, that he tooke away from Ananus the high Priests place, and gaue it to Iesus the sonne of Damneus.
⟨p. 30⟩2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the imprisoning, beating, or scourging, yea taking counsell to kill the Apostles Acts 4, & 5. the stoning of Steven Acts 7.
. The work also of giving thanks for mercies and deliverances obtained by the afflicted and such as have been in distresse (the purpose which the Psalmist hath in hand, extended also to the deliverances of particular persons.) is more especially commended to those who are assembled in an Ecclesiasticall capacity. Even as now among our selves, the civill Courts of Justice, or Magistrates and Rulers or Judges assembled by themselves in a politick capacity, use not to be desired to give thanks for the delivery of certain persons from a danger at Sea, or the like. But it were very proper and fit to desire thanks to be returned, 1. by those that feare God; for as we should desire the prayers, so likewise the praises of the Saints. 2. By the Church or Congregation, of which they that have received the mercy are members. 3.
. Hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists, to overthrow their infallibility of Councels: unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth foure answers. But it came not once into his thoughts, to reply that this councell was civill, not Ecclesiasticall, which had been his best answer, if any probability for it. It hath been supposed, both by Protestant, and Popish Writers, that it was an Ecclesiasticall Councell, such as the controversie is about: otherwise our Argument had been as impertinent, as their answer was insufficient. 4. Our opposites have no evasion here, but that which Bilson, Saravia, and others of the Prelaticall party did answer in opposition to ruling Elders; namely, that the Jewish Elders were Judges or Magistrates; But the reply which served then, will serve now:
. but all judgement in whatsovever civill, or criminall offences, falling out among the Jews, meant by matters of wrong or wicked leudness,
. And having left to the Jewes no government, nor any power of judgement, except in things pertaining to their religion onely Ib. verse 15. These six things considered, it is very unprobable (if not unpossible) that the Councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in the New Testament, should be no Ecclesiasticall Court, but a temporall and civill Magistracy. The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. reckon that Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Court, distinct from civill Magistracy: and they propose these two to be distinctly treated of, Acta coram Pontificibus seu Magistratu Ecclesiastico, (and here they bring in the councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes,) And Actio coram Pilato seu magistratu politico.
