A42758:92
An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland in the points of…
An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland in the points of ruling-elders and of the authority of presbyteries and synods with a postscript in answer to a treatise lately published against presbyterial government.An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland in the points of ruling-elders and of the authority of presbyteries and synods with a postscript in answer to a treatise lately published against presbyteriall government.
Edinburgh: printed for James Bryson, 1641Edinburgh: printed for Iames Bryson, 1641
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.
Now to prove that their Elders were their civill Magistrates, he hath no better argument then this, That the Hebrew word Zaken, which is turned Elder, importeth a chief man, or a Ruler. We answer, First, this is a bold conjecture which he hath neither warranted by divine nor by humane testimonies. ⟨p. 22⟩Secondly, Zaken doth not ever signify a Ruler, or a man in authority, as we have showed before. Thirdly, let us grant Zaken to be a name of dignity, and to import a chief man; yet a chief man is not ever a Magistrate, nor a Ruler. It would only follow that they were of the chief of the fathers of Israel that were joined with the Priests in the Sanhedrin, and so it was, 2 Chron. 19.8. Non hercle de plebe hominum lecti sed nobilissimi omnes, 1saith P. Cunaeus. They were, saith Loc. Theol. to. 6. §. 28. Proceres tribuum qui allegabantur una cum sacerdotibus & scribis in sacrum synedrium. Fourthly, they who were so joined in Council with the Priests, 2 Chron. 19.8. are plainly distinguished from the Judges and Magistrates, vers. 11. And so are the Princes & Rulers distinguished from the Elders, Act. 4.5. Judg. 8.14. Deut. 5.23. Jos. 8.33. Fifthly, we would know whether he thought that all the Magistrates of the Jews sate in Council with the Priests, or some of them only: if some only, we desire either proof or probability who they were, and how many; if all, then should we by the like reason admit not the supreme Magistrate alone (which he seemeth to say) into the Synods of the Church, but all Magistrates whatsoever, and ⟨p. 23⟩what a confusion should that be? Sixthly those Elders that sate in the civil Sanhedrin, were Rulers by their sitting there; but the Elders which sate in the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, either were not civill Magistrates, or at least sate not there as Magistrates. So do our Magistrates sometimes sit with us, as members of our Assemblies, not as Magistrates, but as Elders. Of the distinction of those two Courts, which every one observeth not, we shall speak more afterward.