A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 1 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Containing an answere to the same testimonies, and some other proofes, as they are vrged by other disciplinarians.
THus much might suffice to hauehave answered his allegations out of the scriptures; were it not, that some perhaps will imagine, that these places might be better vrged. For their satisfaction therefore, I will take vponupon me, briefly, yet fully to answere these and some other of the best proofes, as they are vrged by T. C. M. Caluin, Beza and Dudley Fenner.
First therefore concerning,Mat. 18.17. vrged by T.C.l. 1. pag. 176. Mat. 18.17. T. C. argueth thus. By Church is meant either all the people, or the Pastor alone, or the Pastor with the ancients and Elders; but neither the people, nor Pastor alone, therefore the Pastor with the ancients and Elders.
The disiunction is grounded vponupon a supposition of the newfound parish discipline, that there were no other Ecclesiasticall gouernours but parishionall, which I shall hereafter by Gods helpe proue to be absurd. In the meane time, for the confutation of this disiunction, it shall suffice to note that, which all disciplinarians confesse, that our Sauiour Christ speaketh according to the manner of those times either bidding them tell the assembly, that is the Synedrion; of the Iewes; or at least, that the partie offending is to be delated to the like assembly, authorized for hearing of causes, in the Church of Christ. Wherefore T. C. and our new disciplinarians, must first proue these two things, first, that there was an Ecclesiasticall Presbyterie in eueryevery Synagogue, and secondly, that what they had in eueryevery Synagogue we ought to hauehave in eueryevery parish, before they may vrge the like, in imitation of them, to be erected in eueryevery parish among vsus. But they are so farre from prouing the latter of these assertions, that they faile in the former. T. C. professeth,T. C. lib. 2. part 2 pag. 46. he cannot proue it out of the old testament; but that it may be concluded out of the new, he hopeth the Reader will iudge; considering that the policie of the Church now, was in this point taken from the Iewes Church. As if he should say: forasmuch as the Church, which imitated the Iewes, had in eueryevery parish a Presbyterie (which indeed is most notoriously false) it is to be supposed, that the Church of the Iewes had in eueryevery Synagogue the like. Where, by a circular disputation, the question which we denie, is brought to proue his argument, whereby notwithstanding he would seeme to proue the question. For aide therefore he bringeth the custome of the moderne Iewes, who, if they had any such custome, were no fit presedents for vsus to follow. But indeed they, though they hauehave their Rabbi in eueryevery Snagogue, yet an Ecclesiasticall Presbyterie they neuer had for ought that I can find. And whereas he, and after him the author of the Counterpoison, alleage Ierome, Ad Al…gasiam. qu. 10.to proue, that they had their Elders in EueryEvery Synagogue, which should aswell admonish the polluted to abstaine from the assemblies, as to reproue the Sabbath-breakers; I cannot sufficiently wonder at the allegation: for Ierome mentioneth that custome of the Iewes, which he speaketh of, as one of the worst of the Pharisaicall traditions which he calleth foreign, which one (saith he) I will mētion to the shame of the whole nation, and which I will not mention for modestie sake; & therfore we may be sure, neither Christ transmitted, nor Ierome commended it to the Church. Secondly, the gouernours of their Synogogues, which Ierome speaketh of, were such as were to iudge of cleane and vncleane, a dutie peculiar to the Priests.Leuit. 10.10. Neither doth he speake of admonishing the polluted from comming to the assemblie, but onelyonly of iudging betweene cleane and vncleane. And thirdly that which T. C. addeth concerning the Sabbath, is by Ierome mentioned as another tradition of the Pharisies hauing no affinitie with the former.
Yea but the new testament speaketh of them in diuerse places,§ Sect. 2. T. C ibid. pag. 47. Matt. 23.2. de Rep. Hebr. l. 2. cap. 8. De polit Iudaic. c. 18. Sigon li. 5. c. 10. Act. 13.15. & 18.8.17. calling them foreign the chiefe of the Synagogues. The archisynagogi were such as now they call their Rabbies as being the Scribes and Pharisies who were their Teachers sitting in the chaire of Moses, as Sigonius witnesseth. Bertram likewise saith, those who at the first were called Prophets and afterwards Scribes and Doctors of the law, at the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi, (for those who were in the Temple were called scribae templi) and of these in the greater Synagogues there were more then one. Beza also seemeth to hauehave beene of the same minde. Howbeit, both he and Bertram (who dedicateth his booke vntounto him) doe thinke, that in the Synagogue of the cities, these Rulers had Elders ioyned with them. But it may be you expect their proofes. Heare therefore the very foundation of the Presbyterie: to wit, that what was the order of the Church of the Iewes, Christ translated and recommended to his Church. But in the Church of the Iewes there were Elders ioyned to the Teachers to make vp an Ecclesiasticall Senate. How the proposition will be made good, I know not: The assumption is proued thus. There were Leuites in the Synagogues, saith Beza,Bez. de presbyt. & excō mun. 102. in whose hands the spirituall administration was, there being ioyned to them vt probabile est as it is probable, some Citizens of note. Hence is mention of the Archisynagogi, who ruled the assemblies. Bertr. de polit. Iudaic. c. 18.Those saith Bertram who had beene called Prophets and after Scribes, as the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi, vnde verisimile est whence it is likely that those Archisynagogi, did moderate the order of Seniors, who were to enquire into mēs māners: for the Synagogues also had their Ministers, Luc. 4.20. So that (belike) the Minister or attendant, to whom Christ gaue the book, was one of these Seniors, or ex illustrib. ciuibus, as Beza speaketh. Well, & what was their office? Horum proculdubio partes fuerunt, their office no doubt was, not to admit to the Synagogue them, whom the Synedrion of Ierusalem had excluded from the Synagogues. Bez: vbisup:And what their office hath bene since in the Church, you heard it proued before, by Satis opinor constat: I thinke it is euident enough. So that the very foundation,Eccl: disc. whereon the presbyterie of Lay-Elders, (which with such vehemencie and violence hath bene vrged as the vndoubted ordinance of Christ) is grounded, is no better then the probable conjectures of some new writers, who are parties in the cause: probable (I say) in their owne conceipts: For else there is not so much as probabilitie in their Assertions. And so much of M. Cartwrights collection out of Matth: 18.17. and what else is said of others, in fauour of the presbyters in the Synagogues of the cities.
§ Sect. 3. Calu: in Matth: 18.17. Bez: de presbyt, & excō: p. 106. ne que ambigimus quin Chrūs ad verāistā institutionem ecclesiastici Synedrij respexerit Counterpois. 4. Reason for Elderships.Now let vsus see what Caluin, Beza, and others, collect out of that place of Mathew. When Christ biddeth them tell the Church: Forasmuch as there was no Christian church established, wherevnto they might repaire, it were absurde to vnderstand Christ as propounding the iudgement of the Church, which yet was not. Therefore dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that Christ spake of such an assembly as was then in vse alluding to the order of the olde Church, wherein, after their returne from Babylon, a select Councell was established, which they called Sinhedrim, in Greek Synedrion, whervnto the censure of Doctrine and manners was committed. Which Synedrion, besides some Priests and Leuites, consisted of the Elders of the people. And although the discipline was corrupted amongst the Iewes in our Sauiour Christs time, and therefore it is not likely that our Sauiour would send his Disciples to their Assemblies to hauehave their causes heard; yet dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that forme of discipline which had beene vnderunder the Law, was by Christ transmitted to vsus: and that the forme of discipline, which was in vse in the Church of Christ succeeded in the roome thereof.
The summe is.
What manner of presbyters were among the Iewes, the like Christ ordained in his church: when hee said, Tell the Church:
But among the Iews there was an Ecclesiasticall presbyterie, which, besides the priests and Leuites, consisted of the Elders of the people:
Therefore such an Ecclesiasticall presbyterie Christ ordained in his Church.
The proposition hath no other proofe but their owne testimonie, signified in those asseuerations, dubium non est, ne que ambigimus: for that which is added by Beza & the author of the counterpoison, that the wordes which Christ vsed, Let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican ▪ to proue that he spake according to their custome, doe in no sort prooue, that hee translated their forme of gouernement into his church. For if Christ did translate from the state of the Iewes, any Consistories into his church, then hee transmitted such, as were either ordained of God, or deuised by men.
If the former, then such as God ordained for the gouernment of the people, either in the Wildernes, or in the Land of promise. In the Wildernes, by the aduise of Iethro. and approbation of God,Exod: 18.21.22. Deut: 1.15.17. Num: 11.16.17. there were Rulers set ouer thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, to iudge the people: the deciding of more difficult causes beeing reserued to Moses. But the multitude of these difficult causes increasing, and Moses waxing weary of them, the Lord ioyned to him a Senate of 70. Numb: 11.
Answereable to these, the Lorde appointed Consistories or Senates, for the gouernement of the people in the Land of promise.
To the former, Deuteron: 16.18.Deut: 16.18. Iudges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy Cities, throughout all thy Tribes, and they shall iudge the people with righteous iudgement. To the latter, Deut: 17.Deut: 17.8. If there arise a matter too harde for thee in Iudgement betweene blood & blood, betweene plea & plea, betweene plague and plague, in the matters of controuersies, within thy Gates, then shalt thou arise, and goe vp into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come vntounto the Priests and Leuites and the iudge (that is, Iudges saith Caluin) that shall be in those dayes, and aske, and they shall shewe thee the sentence of iudgement.
Verse. 5.This prescript the godly king Iosaphat followed exactly 2. Chron. 19. both in respect of the inferiour consistories in the cities, placing iudges in the land throughout all the strong cities,Verse. 8. citie by citie: and in Ierusalem did he set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families of Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord, saying to them; In eueryevery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in the cities, betweene blood and blood, betweene law and precept, statutes and iudgements, you shall admonish them, &c. Besides these, the Lord ordained no consistories, or senates. But none of these did Christ translate into his Church, for none of them was Ecclesiasticall. Neither did he translate those which were deuised by men; whether by the Iewes, as their Synedrion or Sanedri…n, Ioseph. antiq. lib. 14. c. 11. Sigon. lib. 6. c. 7.which was their chiefe counsell of state, which Caluin saith after their returne from Babylon they did institute, or by P. Gainius the Proconsul of Syria, who ordained foure more Synedria of the like nature: which some suppose to hauehave beene the cause, why our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall number Matt. 10.17. Mar. 13.9. But of the counsell renewed by Iosaphat, and the Synedrion ordained of the Iewes,§ Sect. 4. The proposition confuted. I shall hauehave occasion to say more in answere to the assumption.
But how little credit is to be giuen to that proposition, may appeare by this dilemma: for by Church, Christ doth signifie either the consistories and assemblies of the Iewes, or assemblies in the Church of Christ.
If the former, then was the direction, which Christ giueth, peculiar to those times, and pertaineth not to the Church of Christ,Perpet. gouern. chap. 4. as D. Bilson sheweth in the fourth chapter of his booke, whereunto I doe referre you. If the latter, then had he not so much as respect or reference to the Consistories of the Iewes, so farre was he from translating them into his Church,Matt. 18.6.7 10. as shall appeare by this most plaine explication of the text according to the latter sense.
Our Sauiour Christ intreating of scandales and offences, first teacheth vsus that we be carefull to auoid offences, and that we doe not in that respect seeme to disregard any of his little ones. 2. Hee directeth vsus what course wee are to take when wee are offended. If thy brother (that is, one professing the same religion) shall sinne against thee (that is, priuately,) either by injurie,Vers: 15. doing thee wrong, or if ye will also, by euill exāple scandalizing or giuing thee offence, by his sin committed in thy knowledge, laying as it were a stūbling blocke in thy way,Leuit: 19.17 thou must as the Lorde hath commaunded not suffer sinne to rest vponupon him, but in a desire to reclaim him, thou must 1. vse priuate admonition, & brotherly reproofe; goe, foreign, a…gue and redargue, conuince & reproue him, between thee & him alone. If he harken to thee acknowledging his fault,Iam: 5.20. Vers: 16. and testifying his repentance, then hast thou wonne or gained thy brother, and saued a soule from death. But if he heare thee not, suffer not sinne so to rest vpō him, but take with thee yet 1. or 2. witnesses, & set vpō him iointly, that either by ye presēce & authority of so many together hee may be reclamed, or at least a way be prepared to publicke triall; that howsoeuer thy testimonie alone would bee reiected, yet in the mouth of 2. or 3. witnesses, the matter may be sufficiently testified. And if hee will not heare them, but remaine obstinate,Vers. 17. then tell the Church, that is, the assembly of them who in the church hauehave spirituall authoritie to censure offenders, whether it be the Consistorie of one Citie, or particular church, or the Synode of a Prouince or Nation, or an vniuersall Counsell, according to the nature of the offence, and the qualitie & degree of the offender. And if he will not heare the assembly, but remaining obstinat, draw vponupon him their censure of excōmunication, wherby they shall bind the offender, & after a sort deliuer him to Satan; then shalt thou hold him no more as a brother, or thinke thy selfe bound to exercise the duties appertaining to the cōmunion of Saints, but withdraw thy selfe from him, abandon him, and hauehave no more to doe with him, then a Iew of this time would hauehave to doe with an heathen or publican, that by these meanes seeing himselfe auoided & shunned, hee may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance. And least any man should lightly esteeme the iudgement of the Church,Vers. 18. that is, of such spirituall gouernors as hauehave authoritie in the church to cēsure offenders, Verily I say vntounto you, saith our Sauiour, speaking to his Apostles, and in them to all their successors, to whom the keyes of heauen are committed,Matt: 16.19 Iohn. 20.23. Whatsoeuer you (for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synode, are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly) whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen: and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen. Neither thinke, when I mentioned the church, I meant a great assembly only, or the whole congregation; for I say vntounto you, that where 2. or 3. are gathered together in my name, Vers: 19.20.I am there in the middes of them, & therfore, if but 2. of you shal cōsent in asking any thing of God (as namely pardon for the penitent sinner) it shall be graunted vntounto you.
If against this exposition it shalbe obiected, that the Churches hearing and censuring of offences would be prejudiciall to Magistrates: I answere, offences and offenders admitte diuers distinctions. Of offences, some are open & notorious, some are secrete & priuate. Some againe are grieuous and capital crimes, which may not be cōcealed or left vnpunished, other be offēces not so hainous or enormous, but they may be concealed and pardoned, where is hope of amendment: For notorious and enormous crimes our Sauiour doth not prescribe this course, but for the priuate and lesse offences. Againe, offenders are either (in the iudgment of charity) our brethren in Christ, or the sonnes of Belial: For the latter, we may take the ciuile course of Iustice, for the former we must take a spirituall course of Christian charitie, that wee may winne our brother vntounto Christ, or recouer him beeing fallen, which course our Sauiour heere prescribeth.
By Church therefore or assemblie, our Sauiour meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiasticall senate of the Iewes, nor yet a Presbyterie of Christians answerable therto, consisting for the most part of Lay-elders. Not the former: for Christ speaketh of such, as should meet in his name, to whō he promiseth, what they bind vponupon earth, shalbe bound in heauē: neither are we to think, that our Sauior would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the vnbelieuing Iewes, as Caluin also saith. It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza, not only to imagine,In Matt: 18 17. & in Marc: 5.22. that the name Church is here attributed to the Iews, but that the Archisynagogi assembled together were they who are meant by Church in this place. Or if that were true, how should this direction belong to vsus, seeing not only the imaginarie Ecclesiasticall Senate of the Iewes is vanished, but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished, and their whole policie abrogated. Not the latter, for our Sauiour, by Church vnderstandeth such as should hauehave power to bind & loose sinnes, as appeareth by the words following. Which power of the keyes of binding and loosing sinners,Matth: 16.19. Ioh: 20.23, of retaining and remitting sinnes, our Sauiour Christ hath so peculiarly appropriated to the Apostles, & their successors in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments, as nothing more.
Neither had the Iewes indeed such an ecclesiasticall Senate, as they speake of,§ Sect. 5. The assumption confuted mixed of the Priests and Leuites, with the Elders of the people: as I am now to shew in answering the assumption. For if this be true, that the Iewes had no such Presbyterie, then what shew of trueth or probabilitie is in their argument taken from Matth: 18.17▪
Caluin saith, that the Iewes after their returne from captiuitie,in Math: 18.17. had a chosen counsell, to which was cōmitted the censure of doctrine & manners, which they called Sinhedrin, or Sanedrin, in Greek Synedrion. T.C. holdeth, that the Synedrion was not then first instituted,Lib: 2. part: 2 pag: 41. but restored: which seemeth to be the truth: Howbeit his reason (as almost all the rest) is but a meere colour. For it would follow (saith he) that the Priests, & other Leuiticall teachers who were a part of that Bench, had then their first institution: when it is plaine, that the Priests and Leuiticall teachers were instituted before the Synedrion, Exod: 28. Numb: 11. De presbyt: & excomm: pag 103. Lib: 2. part: 2. pag: 40.and so might hauehave cōtinued their functiō, though the Sanedrin had neuer bin. Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Moses, & the instauratiō therof, whē it was decayed frō Iosaphat. T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod: 4.
With his Elders therefore, as being the eldest in conceit, I will beginne. This order of Eldership (saith hee,) was taken from the gouernement of the people of God, before, and vnderunder the Law. Before the Law, the Elders which Moses assembled, Exod: 4.Exod: 4.29. were Ecclesiasticall officers: for it is not likely, that vnderunder such a Tyrant, they should hauehave Magistrates of their owne.
I answere briefly: the state of the Hebrews, if you respect the whole people, was neither a settled Church, nor established common-wealth. But if you respect the seuerall kinreds and Families, they were ruled by the Elders of the people, which were the heads of the Families;See Beza, de Presbyt: & excomm: pag: 101. who, as alwayes from the beginning, so at that time, & vntill the separation of the Tribe of Leui, to the priestly function, were both priests and magistrates, to their seuerall kinreds and Families. Wherefore let them, who will needes hauehave these to be Lay-Elders, tell vsus, who were then the priests, whome these Elders did assist.
VnderUnder the Law, he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house, 2. King: 6. and in Ezekiels house, Ezek: 2 King: 6.32 Ezek: 8.1.8. because it is vnlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could hauehave the ciuill Gouernors to consult with: & is it not more vnlike, that there should be approued Elders of an ecclesiasticall Senate, either in the Apostoticall Church of Israell, vnderunder Achab and Iehoram, or in Mesopotamia, whether Ezekiell, and those Elders of Iuda were transported, who could neuer be found vnderunder the most godly Kings at Ierusalem?
Againe, hee findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra, and on the left, Nehem: Nehem: 8.2.8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Leuites, and from the people: From the people, because they stood by Ezra. From the teaching Leuites, because he speaketh of them after. Therefore they must needs bee Lay-Elders: as though, either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra, or that these might not hauehave beene priests, or that all the Leuites were teachers, or that there were no more teaching Priests or Leuites but those, which are mentioned then, and there to hauehave taught the people. Hee that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause, must needs thinke this cause to be very badde, which he was not able to make good by better arguments, then those most vnlikely likely-hoods.
§ Sect: 6.Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of councels or consistories were ordained by Moses, which should be held both in Ierusalem, the place which God did choose, & in other cities; whereof the one, was ciuill, the other ecclesiasticall, consisting of the priests, Leuits, & scribes, or teachers, & also the seniors of the people. But the reader shal easily vnderstand this latter to be a meere fiction, if he consider that the Synedrion at Ierusalem, which was the highest court & chief councel of state, hauing power of life & death, & authority to deale in causes both ciuill & ecclesiasticall, cōsisted of the high priest, & other priests and Leuites,2. Chron: 19.8, 10, 11. Num: 11.16 Ezek: 8.11. Sigon: li. 6. c. 7, ex Talmud: Lib. 6, c, 4, ex Ier: 19, 1, together with the Princes & Seniors of the people, being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number: Of which, that in Deut: 17.8.9. is to bee vnderstood. These were called Sanedrin, and did sit in Gazith: In which number, those which were priests, were called Seniores Sacerdotū, and those which were Princes, were called Seniores populi, as Sigondus saith. And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities, consisted as well of the learned Leuits as of the seniors of the people. Iosephus saith, that to eueryevery cō sistory in the cities belonged 2. Leuites. The reason heereof was,Lib, 4, Antiq, 8. because the lawes wherby that church & cōmon-wealth were gouerned, were the lawes of God; wherein the Priests, Leuites, & Scribes were most skilfull, and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law. And therfore another sort, which should consist of Priests, Leuits, and elders of the people,De presbyt: & excom: pag: 104- Leuit: 10, 10 & which should respōdere de iure (as Beza imagineth this shuld) was altogether needles. But his proofs are as weake, as his imagination was strong. His only proofe for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiasticall senat, is Leuit: 10.10. where they were ordained saith he, to shew the difference betweene holy & profane, betweene cleane & vncleane, & to teach the law of God. But no such thing can, with any shew of probabilitie be gathered out of the text, where the Lord speaking to Aaron, cōmandeth him, & his sonnes the priests, by a perpetual law, that they should not drink wine nor strong drink, whē they were to enter into the sanctuary, whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly & soberlie, either in iudging betweene holie & profane, between cleane and vncleane, or in teaching the people; which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary, by the priests, as well seuerally as ioyntly, & no ecclesiasticall senate at all here instituted: or if there were,Cap. 11. it should (according to Bertrams conceit) consist wholy of the Priests, to whom alone this speech is directed. As for Elders of the people, they were not to intermeddle with these things. The high Priest indeed, if it pleased him, might consult with other Priests, and vse their assistance, as Azariah did vse the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26.2. Chron. 26.17 But that there was a setled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiasticall ordained by God, we doe not read: and that it should consist in part of Lay-men, there is not the least semblance of likelihood.
Pag. 103.104.His proofes, that there were two diuerse Synedria instituted, are these First, because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left vncertaine. Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former. I answere, there is neither number set downe, nor time, of that which neuer was.
§ Sect. 7.His proofe for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Iosaphat ordained two Synedria or counsells, the one Ecclesiasticall for the causes of God, ouer which the high Priest was chiefe; the other ciuill, for the causes of the King, ouer which Zabadiah a Prince of Iuda was chiefe. But it is euident by the text, that it was one and the same high counsell of state, which afterwards was called Sanedrin, or Synedrion Hierosolymita…ū, cōsisting of the Leuites and Priests, and of the heads of the chiefe families in Israel, ordained for the iudgements of God and controuersies of men, which was to heare and determine all manner of causes that were brought vntounto them from the iudgements or consistories of the inferior cities, & were to iudge betweene blood and blood, that is slaughter and slaughter, betweene the law and the precept, betweene statutes and iudgements, hauing among them in the causes of God, Amarias the high Priest; and in the causes of the King, Zebadiah a Prince of Iuda, as chiefe, and that the Maisters or gouernours the Leuits were with them to instruct them in the law.Shoterim. See 1. Chron 234. For whereas he would proue, that Iosaphat ordained two distinct counsels at Ierusalem, by these reasons, because the dutie of the one was to deale in the causes of God, the other of the King: the one should determine de iure, the other de facto: the one, had for the president the high Priest, the other a Prince of Iuda: none of these reasons doe proue, that Iosaphat ordained any thing but that, which before had beene appointed by God;Deut. 17.9.10. namely, that the difficult controuersies which the iudges in the cities could not determine betweene blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, should be brought to the Syned…ion or counsell of the place which God shoul… choose, the which is there noted to consist of the Priests,In Pentateuch. in deut. 17 9. Also see Deu. 19 17. Leuites and …udge, that is iudges, saith Caluin, as appeareth by the holy historie, where it is declared that Iosaphat besides the P…i…sts and Leuites chose the Princes of the families of Israel: for the godly King would decline n…uer a whit from the rule of Gods law. To this counsell the difficult causes afore said as we…l ciuill as Ecclesiasticall, as well de facto, Sigō de rep. Hebr. lib. 6. c. 7.as de iure, were to be brought from other ciuill courts, as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8. and also 2 Chron. 19.20.
Besides, it is ridiculous to imagine, that the ciuill senate should determine onelyonly de facto, and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiasticall; the rather because that counsell, which was appointed by God, Deut. 17. and renewed by Iosaphat did consist of the Priests and Leuits and Elders of the people, and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficultie: or if they were to seeke to an Ecclesiasticall senate, it is absurd to imagine, that Lay-Elders should be ioyned to the Priests and Leuits to answere de iure.
As for the causes of God, which verse 8 are termed the iudgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized, verse. 10. and Deut. 17.8. (betweene blood and blood betweene law and precept, &c.) we are to vnderstand them to be not onelyonly Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill, so farre as either they were to be decided b… the lawes of God, or concerned the obseruation or transgression of Gods law, whereby that land was gou…rned, in iudging, whereof, they also exercised Gods iudgement.
The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house, or his eschequer. And it is fond to imagine, that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and mor…ll lawes of God, were not the causes of God, as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law.
Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others, who by the causes of God, vnderstand Ecclesiasticall causes, and by the causes of the king, ciuill causes, because it is preiudiciall to my defence; but because it is repugnant to the truth: for though their interpretation were admitted, it would no more proue, that there were two distinct Syn…dria, Antiq. lib. 9. c. 1.then that which I doe embrace. For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King, as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God, yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell,foreign. as Iosephus also doth witnesse. For speaking of this act of Iosaphat, he saith, that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there foreign of the Priests and Leuits, and of the chiefe or principall men of the people: Synedrion fuisse. 71. cui precrat Sacerdos Summus. The high Priest had autho…itie to call or assemble the counsell, till the time of Antipater Herods Father, but after wards not without the Lieuetenants leaue. Sigon. li. 6. c. 7. Iosep. l. 20. Cal. in Mat. 18.requiring them to exercise iust iudgement, but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats: but the chiefe or presidents of them, as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest, and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda: and relating the law, Deu. 17.8. (a)Li. 4. c. 8.he saith, if the iudges (in the cities) be not able to determine any cause, it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie, foreign (b)Li. 6. c. 7.and let the high Priest and the Prophet (that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith (c)Luk. 22.66.Sigonius) and the senate assembling together, pronounce what seemeth right.
Besides, it is manifest, that the counsell at Ierusalem, after the captiuitie, which consisted of priests and Leuits, besides the Seniors of the people, and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth, hauing authoritie to assemble it, &c. Act. 5.21. Matt. 26.57.59. was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion, or cōsistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not onelyonly Ecclesiasticall, but also ciuil, and in causes criminall and capitall. Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests, but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution, Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat. 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation, as Caluin witnesseth, in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity. For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie,Esa. 1.26. Ezek 44.24. as before; so Ezekiell prophecieth, that the Priests, after the captiuitie, should not onelyonly teach the people, and iudge betweene holy and prophane, betweene cleane and vncleane; but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies, iudging according to Gods iudgement. Iosephus also testifieth, that the Priests were ordained by Moses foreign,Contr. Appion. lib. 2. ouerseers of all, iudges of controuersies, and punishers of such as are by the law condemned.
And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem, vntill I come to answere Caluins opinion.§ Sect. 8. Exod. 18. Deut. 1. &. 16. 2. Chron. 19. De presb. & excom. pag. 102. In Marc. 5.22. de presbyt. 112. Pag. 103.
As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities, Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures: For the courts of iudgement, which both Moses instituted, and Iosaphat renewed, though they had Leuites among them, were to deale not onelyonly in Ecclesiasticall, but also in ciuill and criminall causes. The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three. First, because the Archisynagogi had, as it is probable, Seniors of the people ioyned with them. Secondly, because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them, which could not be, vnlesse they did consist of the laitie, as wel as the clergie. Thirdly, because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates, so the Ecclesiasticall, in the Synagogues. To the first I answere, that a probabilitie (if this were such, as indeed it is not) is no proofe: to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi, but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name, with whom he promised his presence, and to whom he committed the power of the keyes, to whom also the name Ecclesia, which may be giuen to any company of Christians, be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ, doth fitly agree. Thirdly, he telleth vsus of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses, and renewed by Iosaphat, sitting in Synagogues; when there is not once mention in the old testament, either of Ecclesiasticall consistories, or yet of Synagogues. And in the new, such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues,Mat. 10.17. & 23 34. Act. 22 19. Cap. 13. as punished by stripes. Bertram also witnesseth, that in the Synagogues of the cities, iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges; the greater and weightier causes, as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell …t Ierusalem. And againe, that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer, § Sect. 9. Cap. 18.to heare the law and the Prophets, and to heare the iudgement of Moses law, as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall And so much of Beza.
Calui… by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon:In Mat 18.17. In Num. 11.16. which he conceiueth to hauehave beene an Ecclesiasticall senate, to which belonged the censure of doctrine & maners, hauing the power o… excōmunication &c. What this Synedrion was, Caluin himselfe shall tell vsus, It is certaine saith he that the Iewes, when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment, because they might not make a King, did imitate this example (of appointing 70. Elders. Num. 11) in ordaining the Synedrion. OnelyOnly so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings, that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours, in whom should be the chiefe power: And this course continued vntill Herod, &c. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsell of state, which was to iudge of causes, not only Ecclesiasticall, but also ciuill and criminal, yea capitall, hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death. Whereby they adiudged malefactors conuicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death, stoning,Sigon. lib. 6. c. 7. ex Talmud. & Petr. Galatin. burning, killing with the sword and strangling; hauing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth, that is, the consistories of iudges in other cities; to whom alone it appertained to iudge the cause of a tribe, of a false Prophet, of the high Priest, &c. And howsoeuer their power was much restrained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Romanes; notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes foreign libertie to liue according to their owne lawes, permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iudging not onelyonly Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes,Act. 6. & 7. and 22.4.5.19.20. and 24.6. & 16.10.11. Deut. 17.12. and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment, and sometimes by death. Moreouer, by the law of God, he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell, was not, as our Sauiour Christ heere saith, to be held as an heathen or Publican, but he was to die the death. Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appointment of God, and that in the place which he should choose, either ordained by Moses, or restored by Iosaphat, or renewed by the Iewes after their captiuitie. Wherefore our disciplinarians might as well desire to hauehave a parliament or high counsell of state in eueryevery parish, as such a consistorie as this was.
To conclude this place: Though it were true, that the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of Priests and Elders of the people: yet it cannot be proued, that in this place of Mathew Christ alluded to it, and much lesse that he ordained the like in his Church. But now I hauehave shewed, that the Iewes had no such Ecclesiasticall senate: and therefore out of this place nothing can with any shew of probabilitie be concluded for Lay-Elders.
The second testimonie T. C. vrgeth thus:§ Sect. 10. Act. 14.23. T. C. lib. 1.174.
Diuerse Ministers were not ordained in eueryevery congregation:
Diuerse Elders were ordained in eueryevery congregation: therefore there were Elders which were not Ministers.
The proposition he proueth, because it was not like that they had diuerse Ministers for such a number of congregations as were then to be preached vntounto. I distinguish of the word congregation, which T. C. vseth ambiguously: for in the assumption it signifieth the Church of a whole citie: in which sense foreign and foreign is all one:Tit. 1.5. act. 14.23. and so it is true, that diuerse Presbyters were placed in eueryevery Church, In the proposition, as appeareth by the prosyllogisme, it signifieth eueryevery particular congregation, which T. C. seemeth to acknowledge to hauehave beene diuerse in eueryevery citie or Church, contrarie to our refuter, as we shall heare in the second booke. And in this sense it may be true, that not eueryevery congregation had diuerse Presbyters: as with vsus eueryevery citie or Church hath diuerse Presbyters, yet eueryevery congregation hath not.Tit. 1.5. I say then, what Paul required Titus to doe in Creet, the same he and Barnabas performed in these countries: that is, they ordained Presbyters foreign or foreign in eueryevery citie or Church; which Presbyters were also such as the Apostle Tit. 1. calleth Bishops, and requireth in them abilitie to preach. And although in eueryevery citie or Church there were diuerse of them, yet not diuerse for eueryevery meeting. There is no necessitie therefore, nor yet probabilitie, that by Presbyters in this place we should vnderstand any but Ministers, contrarie to the perpetuall vse of the word: Neither can any interpreter be alleaged old or new, that is not a partie, which doth vnderstand the word of Lay-Elders.De relig. pag. 1 68. In Act. 14.23. In Act. 14.23. Zanchius, though a fauourer of the Presbyterie, reckoneth this place among those, wherin Ministers of the word are called Presbyters. Aretius, though he acknowledgeth the distinction of Presbyters into two sorts, yet he confesseth this place is, as you heard before, to be vnderstood of Ministers. Caluin himselfe the principall Patrone of the Eldership, vnderstandeth by Presbyters in this place Ministers, and Preachers. Prebyteros his vocari int…rpretor, quibus iniunctum erat docendi munus: Presbyters here I interprete those to be called, to whom the office of teaching was enioyned. Yea but saith T. C. though Caluin say Ministers; here be called Presbyters, Lib. 2. part. 2.35. & 36.yet he doth not say that they onelyonly: yea he must be vnderstood (as implying Lay-Elders vnderunder Presbyters) seeing he auoucheth the place of Titus, which to vsus seemeth all one with Act. 14,) for the establishment of these Elders, and quoteth instit. lib. 4. c. 3. s. 8. where he writeth thus.Lib. 4. c. 3. § 8. Whereas I called those who gouerne the Churches indifferently, Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, Ministers, I did according to the vse of the scripture, which confoundeth these words: for whosoeuer exercise the ministerie of the word, it giueth the title of Bishops to them. So where Paul commandeth Titus to ordaine Presbyters in eueryevery citie, he straightwaies addeth, for a Bishop must be vnreproueable, Tit. 1.5.7. so Phil. 1.1. & Act. 20.17.28. here now it is to be obserued, that hitherto we hauehave reckoned those officers onelyonly, which consist in the ministerie of the word. You see then, how Caluin in his institutions, vrged this place in the Epistle to Titus for Lay-Elders. Wil you also heare his iudgment in his cōmentarie vponupon the place?Caluin. in Tit. 1.5. although we gather saith he out of the 1. Tim: 5: that there were two sorts of Presbyters, yet the context here will straightwaies shew, that no other then Doctors are here vnderstood, that is who were ordained to teach; becàuse by and by he will call them Bishops.
But for all this T.C. seeth not, why it may not be referred to Elders, meaning Lay-Elders, as well as too BB: meaning Ministers. But say I, you must see that Lay-Elders not onelyonly may, but must necessarily be vnderstood in this place, or else it is absurdly alleaged by you to proue them. Yes, he and the Author of the counter poison will proue, that they are meant here: for the word Elders is set downe generally signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers, therefore Paul and Barnabas ordained Lay-Elders as well as Ministers. To the consequence I first answere, that if Elders were a generall name comprising more sorts then one, and if Luke had said, that they ordained all sorts of Elders, this consequence would hauehave held: for from the Genus vniuersally taken, we may affirmatiuely conclude the speciall sorts. But Luke not speaking so, it is sufficient for the truth of the historie, if they ordained any sort of Elders. Now it is confessed of all, that they ordained Ministers, therefore though Elders were the Genus, yet this were a very weake argument. Yea but saith T.C. S. Luke there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the Church: Counterpois. arg. 6. for Elders.and his purpose was saith another to declare how the Apostles brought the Churches to a perfect and full order of Church gouernement, Whereunto I answere first, that the Church might hauehave a perfect and full order of gouernement without them, And secondly that Lukes meaning was not to signifie that they brought those Churches to a full and perfect order of gouernement at their first conuersion, which was not to be expected; but that now they began to establish Churches, placing among them Presbyters or Ministers, as being necessarie for the very being of visible Churches, without mention (I say not of Bishops, who notwithstanding were added before they were brought to the full and perfect order of gouernemēt, but euen) of Deacons.
The consequence therefore were naught, though the antecedent were true, that is, though Presbyter were the Genus, or generall word, signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers; for it were onelyonly an argument from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuely. But the antecedent I hauehave before proued to be most false: there being not any testimonie to be produced out of scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or histories of the Church where Presbyter signifieth an Ecclesiasticall function in the Church of Christ, doth signifie any other but a Minister of the word. And therefore it is absurd to imagine, that Luke Act. 14. doth by Presbyters meane any other then Ministers.
§ Sect. 11. Iam. 5.14. Counterpois. argum. 5. for Lay-Elder. 1. Tim. 4. 1. Thess. 5.14.The third testimonie, I find not vrged any where, but in the counterpoison. Where it is said, that Iames willing them, when they be weake, to send for the Elders of the Church, thereby plainely declareth, that the Church ought not onelyonly to hauehave a pastor and a doctor, whose chiefe attendance must be on reading exhortation and doctrine; but also many, who ought alwaies to be readie at an instant calling of diuerse and many at once, that none in that necessarie worke be neglected. It followeth thereby that besides them, there ought to be such other Elders as may admonish the vnruly, comfort the weake minded, and be patient towards all.
If all this were granted as it is propounded, it would not follow thereupon, that therefore there should be any Lay-Elders, but many Ministers in eueryevery Church: for such were those in the place cited,1. Thessa. 5.12.14. and it is the duetie of those, whom Iames would hauehave sent for, to attend vntounto reading, doctrine and exhortation.
But his meaning (no doubt) was this: There ought to be many Elders in eueryevery Church, therefore some Lay-Elders. The consequence he taketh for granted: the antecedent he proueth thus. There were many Elders in eueryevery Church in S. Iames time, therefore there ought to be many now.
For answere to his antecedent and proofe thereof, we are to distinguish of the word Church. For if thereby he meane the Church of a whole citie and countrey adioyning, there were, and are many Presbyters in eueryevery Church: but if thereby he meane eueryevery seuerall congregation, meeting, or assembly of Christians: there neither are, nor were many Presbyters appointed to eueryevery such Church. In S. Iames time, though in each Church there were diuerse assemblies of Christians meeting as they could; yet were not parishes distinguished, nor Presbyters seuerally and certainely allotted to them; but to the Church of a whole citie and countrey adioyning, there was one Bishop, and many Presbyters prouided. But when parishes were distinguished, to each of them seuerally a Presbyter was assigned out of the Clergy or Presbyterie of the citie; the residue of the Presbyters remaining with the Bishop, who (as before the diuision of parishes) retained still the charge of the whole Diocesse, as I will God willing shew in the next booke. Wherefore, though in S. Iames time, before the diuision of parishes, there were in eueryevery Church (that is Diocesse) many Presbyters; yet it doth not follow, that therefore in eueryevery parish there should be diuerse Presbyters.
But his consequence is especially to be insisted vponupon: for though there were in each Church many Presbyters, as at Ephesus Act. 20. and at Ierusalem where Iames himselfe was Bishop Act. 15. &. 21. of which number Iames would hauehave the weake to send for some; yet in that number there was not one, who was not a Minister. Neither can any sound reason be alleaged, why we should conceiue these Presbyters, of whom Iames speaketh, to hauehave beene any other then Ministers. First the title which is giuen them, viz: Presbyters of the Church as Act. 20.17. is peculiar to Ministers, not one instance to be giuen to the contrarie. Secondly, the function, for the performance wherof they were to visit the sicke, chiefely, if not onelyonly pertaining to Ministers, and that was not onelyonly to pray ouer the partie, and that (as it seemeth by the phrase foreign) with imposition of hands,Bez. in Iam. 5. but also to annoint him with the oile in the name of the Lord, that by the oile, as an outward, though temporarie Sacrament, annexed to the temporarie gift of healing, granted for a time not onelyonly to the Apostles,Mar. 6.13. but also to their successors in the ministerie of the word, the sicke might be restored to health; and by prayer ioyned with imposition of hands, the sinnes of the partie might be remitted, and so the cause of the sicknes be remoued.
Wherefore I make no question, but the speach of Saint Iames is to be vnderstoode, according to the perpetuall vse of the word, the generall interpretation of all writers both old and new,Zanch. de relig pag. 168. (excepting not all that be parties in the cause,) and the generall and continuall practise of the Church, expounding him, as if he had said, let him call for the Ministers, &c.
§ Sect. 12. Rom. 12.8. Counterpoison. arg. 2. for Elders.The fourth testimonie is thus vrged. If the Apostle setting downe the ordinary members of Christ his Church, which differ in their proper action, doe set downe the Elder to be ouer the people with diligence, and not to be occupied in the ministerie of the word either by exhortation or doctrine, but to admonish them and rule them; then the onelyonly-gouerning Elders were ordained by the Apostles: but the first say they is manifest, Rom. 12.6.7.8. therefore the second.
But the first, say I, is so farre from being manifest, that it cannot so much as obscurely be gathered out of the text. It is true, the Apostle speaketh of the members of the body of Christ, and of the diuerse gifts bestowed vponupon them, which the Apostle exhorteth eueryevery one knowing his proportion, or measure, in all humilitie and modestie to imploy to the common good of the whole body. But you must vnderstand, First, that the members of Christ are not onelyonly officers in the state Ecclesiasticall, but all Christians whatsoeuer, as well in the body politicke, as Ecclesiasticke, whether publicke or priuate. Secondly, that the Apostle doth not speake of distinct offices which are not coincident to the same persons, but of the diuerse gifts, and graces of Gods spirit:Rom: 12.6. for so he saith foreign, &c: hauing diuerse gifts according to the grace which is giuen vntounto vsus, of which all or most may concurre in the same subiect. As for example, a good and faithfull Minister, hath as a Minister: First, foreign, the gift of expounding the scriptures and of prayer, Secondly, foreign, a function to Minister and serue God in the edification of the church, Thirdly, foreign, the gift of Teaching. 4. foreign, the gift of Exhortation: 5. foreign, the gift of gouernment: and as a good Christian. 6. foreign: and 7. foreign: the grace to distribute, and to communicate to to the necessities of his bretheren, in simplicitie and cheerefulnes. 3. That these gifts are not proper to Ecclesiasticall persons,See D. B…lson, Pag. 137, 138. but common to others.
But if the Apostle had here propounded distinct offices, then might 7. be distinguished, and those foreign, or in-compatible in the same person. But neither are there according to these branches. 7. distinct offices; And besides, they are, or may be all, or diuers of them, coincident to the same person. As for Lay-Elders, they are neither particular, lie expressed, nor in the generall implyed. The speech is generall, hee that gouerneth, in diligence, appartaining to all, that hauehave authoritie, not onelyonly in the church, but also in the family or common-wealth. Indeed, if it were presupposed, (which will neuer be proued by them, nor graunted by vsus) that among gouernours, Lay-Elders had a place in the primitiue church; then this generall might particularly be applyed to them, after this manner; all gouernours ought to be diligent, therfore they. But seeing there were none such, for men to argue from the generall, to a fained speciall, and that affirmatiuè, in this manner; the Apostle speaketh of gouernours, therefore of Lay-Elders: It is an argument like all the rest, not worth the answering.
Yea, but the disputer alleageth Caluin, who in his institutions affirmeth that this place cannot bee otherwise vnderstood. Lib. 4. c. 4. Sect. 8.I would be loath to contest with Caluin, whose name is reuerend, and whose memorie is blessed. Neuertheles, it is euident by that which hath bene said, that it may and ought otherwise to be expounded.
Yea Caluin himselfe confesseth else-where, that howsoeuer this place doe seeme especially to be vnderstood of Ecclesiasticall Gouernours or Seniors;Inst. li. 4. c. … § Sect. 4. tamen dubium non est, quin omne iustae prefecturae genus nobis commendet; Yet it is not to bee doubted but that the Apostle doth commend vntounto vsus all kindes of iust gouernement.
In Rom: 12.8.And againe, although properly he call the Church-Gouernors, and namely the Seniors, foreign, notwithstanding what he saith of them, may vniuersally be extended to gouernements of all sorts. By Caluins owne confession therfore, the words may generally be vnderstood. And if they may, then also they must. For who shall dare without good warrant, to restraine the generall sence of the holy Ghost to one onelyonly particular; Especially, that being but a counterfeit; as if the Apostle when he saith, hee that gouerneth, in diligence, had said, let the Lay, or only gouerning Elders be diligēt in their office.
The countterpois. Beza de presbyt: & excōm. 113.Yea but the Apostle speaketh of such a Gouernour, as might neither teach nor exhort: and therefore beeing neither Pastor nor Doctor, it must needes be the only gouerning Elder. Of this Enthym…me both the antecedent is false, and the consequence vnsound. For if the Apostle speake of such a Gouernour, as might not teach, nor exhort, then neither distribute, nor shew merciemercy; and by the same reason, the teacher, and exhorter, of whome hee spake before, may not gouerne.
But as I said, the Apostle doth not speake of distinct offices, but of diuerse gifts, which manie times concurre in the same person. So that, as hee that teacheth and exhorteth, may also gouerne, and distribute: so hee that gouerneth, as the Pastor, may teach and exhort, and not onelyonly hee, but the Father is to teach and exhort his children, the maister his familie; yea,Coll. 3.16. Heb. 3.13. priuate Christians are to instruct and exhort one another. Neither doth it follow, if he which gouerneth be neither a Pastor nor Doctor, that straightwaies he should be an onelyonly gouerning Elder. For husbands, parents, maisters, and magistrates, maisters of Colleges and hospitalls, are gouernors, though neither Doctors nor Pastors,In Tit. 1. sect: 2. contra Rhem. § Sect. 13. 1 Cor. 12.28. and yet are they no Ecclesiasticall Lay-Elders. To conclude, D. Fulke vnderstādeth this place chiefly of Bishops, whom he supposeth here to be called foreign, as Heb: 13.17. foreign.
The fifth and last testimonie, is thus inforced by them. If God hath set in his Church Gouernours distinct from the Ministers of the Word, then hath he ordained Lay or onelyonly gouerning Elders. Bez. de presbyt: & ex: cōm: 113. T. C. lib. 2. part. 2.38. Counterpois: Argum: 3. for Elders. Vers: 27.But the first is testified by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 12.28. therefore God hath ordained lay or onelyonly gouerning Elders.
In this Syllogisme no part is sound: for first the consequence of the proposition is naught: for by Church as it is taken in the assumption, citing 1. Cor. 12. is meant the whole body of Christ, and by the members of his body, all Christians; among whom God hath established degrees of superiors to gouerne, and inferiors to obey in all societies, as well in the family & cōmonwealth, as in the Ecclesiasticall state.
Secondly, the assumption is false: for, although it be true that in Christs body there are gouernours Occonomicall & politicall distinct from the Ministers; yet Paul doth not in this place testifie, that Christ hath set in his Church gouernours distinct from the Ministers; and much lesse doth he testifie, that in the Church, that is the state Ecclesiasticall, he hath ordained gouernours which are not Ministers. Nay, which is more, the Apostle doth not once mention gouernours in this text: for it is the fault of the translation, for foreign & foreign that is helpes and gouernements, to read helpers and gouernours: it being the purpose of the holy Ghost in all the 12.13. and 14. chapters, to discourse of the diuerse gifts wherewith God doth adorne the membes of his Church: & in this context, in the midsts of other gifts, which are expressed in the abstract, he placeth these two, for so he saith, powers, gifts of healing, helpes, gouernemēts, kindes of tongues. Now it is no better reasō to make two distinct offices of helpers and gouernours out of these words, then to raise three others out of the other three, powers, gifts of healing and kinds of tongues. But it were ridiculous to make three distinct offices of these three; so is it of the other. And if the other three are to be accounted as gifts, and not as offices; why should we not so conceiue of helpings and gouernings, that is to say, the gift of helping and gouerning? Yea I say further, that although in the beginning of the verse, the Apostle doth reckon three offices, Apostles, Prophets, Teachers: yet his purpose was not exactly to distinguish Ecclesiasticall functions, but to enumerate the diuerse gifts of Gods spirit,Eph. 4.11. wherwith the members of Christs bodie are adorned, foreign, for the common good of the bodie: Some being honoured with the gift of the Apostleship, some with the gift of Prophecie, some with the gift of teaching; some with the gift of working miracles,Chrysost. 1. Cor. 12. foreign Acts. 20.35. foreign some with the gift of healing diseases; some with the gift of helping and relieuing those that be distressed, as Chrysostome expoundeth it, and as the word is vsed, Act: 20. some with the gift of gouerning, some with the gift of tongues.
For if the Apostle had meant in this place to distinguish the Functions and Offices of the Church: then from this Text should eight distinct offices bee collected; neither should these gifts hauehave bene coincident into the same persons; so that teachers might not gouerne, and gouernours might not teach,Oecum foreign. &c. whereas contrariwise, it is euident, that the Apostles had all these gifts, as Chrysostome also saith: foreign, Prophets and Teachers had diuers of them, &c.
It is plaine therefore, that the Apostle did not distinguish the offices of the Church, but orderlie recount the gifts and graces, wherewith the Lord doth beautifie diuers members of the Church.
And whereas the Corinthians were proud of their gift of tongues,foreign Chrysost: in 1. Cor: 12. 1. Cor: 12.31. & 14.1.3. In 1. Cor. 12. and despised others; the Apostle sheweth that among all these gifts which hee reckoneth, that of tongues deserueth the last place: And therfore exhorteth thē to be zealous of the better gifts, chiefly to follow after louelove, and to couet after spiritual gifts, but amōg them to desire, rather to prophecie, that is to preach, then to speak with tongues.
And whereas the holie Ghost doth marshall in order the gifts of God, according to their worthines, saying: First, second, third: if by helpes he should meane Deacons, and by gouernments Elders, then must we hold Deacons to be preferred before Elders, which will not be granted. If anie man doubt whether helps and gouernments are to be accounted gifts, Chrysostome may resolue him: who as of the former he saith, that is in especial maner ye gift of God, so also of the latter, foreign, to be fitte to gouerne, and to administer spirituall things: and he addeth, that our duties are called Gods gifts, to teach vsus, that our abilitie in performance of our dutie, is the gift of God. So Oecumenius, foreign, which also he calleth a gift, though it require our labour also and industrie.
Nazianzen also reckoneth them among the graces of the spirit.foreign. For the spirit (saith he) is one, but the graces are not equall, nor yet the receptacles of the spirit. For to one, by the spirite is giuen the word of Wisedome and contemplation; to another, the word of knowledge or reuelation; foreignto another, firme & vndoubted faith; to another, the inoperations of powers, & high wonders; to another, the gifts of healing▪ foreign, helpes, that is, Presidencies▪ or Patronages; Gouernements, that is, Poedagogies of the flesh, kindes of tongues, interpretations of tongues.
I am not ignorant,Ambros: in 1. Cor: 12. A-Apostolos] ipsi Episcopi sunt. Theodoretus Eccleesiarū administrationes per haec significauit. Anselm: Th: Aquin: Dyonisius, Carthus: N. Lyranus. in 1. Cor: 12. that some before our time hauehave vnderstood diuerse of these members to hauehave bene Ecclesiasticall functions. But yet their exposition wholly agreeth with the gouernment of our Church, not with the pretended discipline. For by Apostles, they vnderstand, not only the 12. Apostles, but their successors also in the gouernment of the Church, that is to say, the Byshops; and by helps, they vnderstand them, who help the Bishops in the gouernment of the church, as the Deanes and Archdeacons; and by gouernements, the gouernors or rectors of seuerall parishes.
These with 1. Tim: 5.17▪ are the testimonies of Scripture, which vsually be aleaged by the patrons of the presbyterie, not one of them almost either omitting any of them, or adding any other. *Ad pag: 5…So that this Disputer might trulie cōclude, that this is the strength, and indeed all the strength they hauehave out of the Scriptures. Which how strongly or strangely rather, they hauehave concluded for the Lay-Elders, it doth sufficiently appeare to them, that hauehave not either a strong preiudice, or a weake iudgement. Assuredly, if the Fathers be no stronger for them, then the Scriptures, then is the cause of the Lay-Elders very weake and languishing.