Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civill.
I Come to the second point, that there was an Ecclesiasticall government, and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jews. This distinction of the two Sanhedrins, the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall, is maintained by Zepperus de polit. eccles. l. 3. cap. 7. Iunius in Deut. 17. Piscator ibid. Wolphius in 2. Reg. 23. Gerhard Harm. de pass. cap. 8. G…dwin Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 1. Bucerus de gubern. eccl. pag. 61, 62. Walaeus Tom. 2. pag. 9. Pelargus in Deut. 17. Sopingius ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 261. et seq. The Dutch Annotations on Deut. 17. & 2 Chron. 19. Bertramus de polit. Jud. cap. 11. Ap…llonii jus Majest. part. 1. p. 374. Strigelius in 2. Paralip. cap. 19. The professours of Groning. (Vide Judicium facult. Theol. academiae Groninganae, apud Cabeljav. def. potest. Eccl. pag. 54.) I remember Raynolds in the Conference with Hart is of the same opinion. Also M. Paget in his defence of Church government, pag. 41. Besides divers others. I shall onelyonly adde the Testimony of Constantinus L'Empereur, a man singularly well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities, who hath expressed himselfe concerning this point both in his Annotations upon Bertram pag. 389. and Annot. in Cod. Middoth. pag. 187, 188. The latter of these two passages you have here in the cCaete…ùm supremus Senatus cujus in hoc concl…visedes, duplex fuisse videtur, pro …erum Ecclesi…ticarum & politicarum diversitate: quonia… Deut 17. 12. ubi de supremis Senatoribus agitur, manisestè Sacerdos d Iudice distinguitur; ad sacerdotema…t ad Iudicem i. e. Sacerdotes aut Iudices, ut com. 9. inaicio est, ubi pro Sacerd…te ponuntur Sacerdotes. Adde Ieboshaphatum, cum Iudicia Hicrosolymis restaura…et, duos ordines conflituisse, Sacerdetes & Capita samilia…um, ad judicium Dei & ad litem: similiter duos praes…les com 11. un…m ad omnem causam Dei: alterum scilicet duce… Iudaeorum ad omne negotium Regis. Quibus succinunt verba Jerem. 19. 1. quibus Seniores populi… Senioribus Sacerdot…m distinguntur. Quocirca in N. T. sublato (ut videtur) per H…rodem, uno synedrio, sc. politico; al…erum Apostolorum seculo supersuit, in quo politici etiam manebant reliqui…: nam ab Ecclesiasticis Seniores populi distinguntur, Matth. 26. 3. 59 & 27. vers. 1. Ni magis placeat, quod ab aliis observatum suit, Herodem, sublatis 70. Senioribus è familia Davidica, alios inseriores substitu…sse: quod judiciorum quibusdam excmplis firmari videtur. Adeo … illis temporibus duplex quoque Synedrium suerit, quamvis utriusque Senatores subinde convenirent: qu… fortè reserendum foreign, quod Matth. 26. 59. Marc 14. 55. & 15. 1. Acts 22. 30. occurrit. (Quin etiam cap 1. cod. Iomae, eadem distinctio his verbis confirmatur (ubi de … Sacerdotis magni ad diem expiationis agitur) tradunt eum Seniores d…mus Iudicii, Senioribus Sacerdotii.Margin, expressing not only his opinion, but the ground of it.
And it is no obscure footstep of the Ecclefiasticall Sanhedrin, dPropter meritum assess…rum Sy…edrii, qui occupati sunt in lege, & illuminant Iudicium. Et descendit in Babyloniam ad concilium Sapientum. I… non fuit Synedrium Iudicum & Magistratus summi, sed collegium doctorum.which is cited out of Elias, by D. Buxtorf in his Lexicon Chald. Talmud. & Rabbin. p. 1514.
The first institution of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin appeareth to me to be held forth Exod. 24. 1. where God saith to Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou and Aaron, Nad… and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel. It is a controversie among Interpreters who those seventy Elders were. fIu Exod. 24. Quaest. 3.Tostatus maketh it cleare, that they were not the seventy Elders chosen for the government of the Common-wealth, Num 11. Nor yet the Judges chosen by the advice of Iethro, Exod. 18. Nor yet any other Judges which had before time Judged the people. These three negatives Willet upon the place holdeth with Tostatus. Not the first: for this was done at Mount Sinai, shortly after their comming out of Egypt. But on the twenty day of the second monethmonth, in the second yeere, they tooke their journey from Sinai to the Wildernesse of Paran, Num. 10. 11, 12. and there pitched at Hibroth-hattaavath Num. 33. 16. where the seventy Elders were chosen to relieve Moses of the burthen of Government. So that this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of seventy Num 11. Not the second: for this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of Judges by Iethros advice Exod. 18. Iethro himselfe not having come to Moses till the end of the first yeere, or the beginning of the second yeere after the comming out of Egypt, and not before the giving of the Law: which Tostatus proves by this argunent, The Law was given the third day, after they came to Sinai; but it was impossible that Iethro should in the space of three daies, heare that Moses and the people of Israel were in the wildernesse of Sinai, and come there unto them, that Moses should goe forth and meet him, and receive him, and entertaine him; that Iethro should observe the manner of Moses his government, in litigious judgement from morning till evening, and give counsell to rectifie it; that Moses should take course to helpe it; how could all this be done in those three daies, which were also appointed for sanctifying the people against the receiving of the Law? Therefore gIn Exod. 18. Quest. 2.he concludeth that the story of Iethro Exod. 18. is an anticipation. Lastly, he saith, the seventy Elders mentioned Exod. 24. could not be Judges who did judge the people before Iethro came, because Iethro did observe the whole burthen of government did lie upon Moses alone, and there were no other Judges.
Now it is to be observed, that the seventy Elders chosen and called Exod. 24. were also invested with hMenocbius in Exod. 24. 14. redite ad populum, ut illum regatis, & in officio contineati…. Pelargus upon the place saith that Moses would not leave the Church without Rulers to avoyd the danger of popular anarchy.authority in judging controversies, wherein Aaron or Hur were to preside vers. 14. They are joyned with Aaron, Nadad, and Abihu, and are called up as a Representative of the whole Church, when God was making a Covenant with his people. Tis after the Judiciall lawes, Exod. 21. & 22. & 23. and that 24 Chapter is a transition to the ceremoniall lawes concerning the worship of God, and structure of the Tabernacle, which are to follow. Neither had the seventy Elders (of which now I speake) any share of the Supreme civill Government, to judge hard Civill causes, and to receive appeals concerning those things from the inferiour Judges; for all this did still lie upon Moses alone, Num. 11. 14. Furthermore they saw the glory of the Lord, and were admitted to a sacred banquet, and to eat of the Sacrifices in his presence Exod. 24. 5, 10, 11. and were thereby confirmed in their calling. All which laid together may seem to amount to no lesse then a solemne interesting and investing of them into an Ecclesiasticall authority.
The next proofe for the Ecclesiasticall Sanhed…in shall be taken from Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. where observe 1. Tis agreed upon both by Jewish and Christian Expositors, that this place holds forth a supreme civill Court of Judges, and the authority of the civill Sanhedrin is mainly grounded on this very Text. Now if this Text hold forth a superior civill Jurisdiction (as is universally acknowledged) it holds forth also a superior Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction distinct from the Civill. For the Text carrieth the authority and sentence of the Priests as high, as the authority and sentence of the Judges, and that in a disjunctive way, as two powers, (not one) and each of them binding, respectively, and in its proper sphere. 2. The Hebrew Doctors tell us of three kinds of causes, which being found difficult were transmitted from the inferiour Courts to those at Ierusalem. 1. capitall causes. 2. mulcts. 3. leprosie, and the judgement of clean or unclean. Now this third belonged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests. Yea the Text it self holdeth forth two sorts of causes, and controversies, some forensicall between blood and blood: some ceremoniall between stroke and stroke; not onelyonly Hierome, but the Chaldee, and Greek, readeth, between leprosie and leprosie. Grotius noteth, the Hebrew word is used for leprosie, many times in one chapter, Lev. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both, there being difference of judgement concerning the one and the other. 3. Here are two Iudicatories distinguished by the disjunctive Or V. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and in our English Translation; so that vers. 9. and is put for or, as Grotius noteth, expounding that verse by vers. 12. And as the Priests and Levites are put in the plurall V. 9. the like must be understood of the Iudge, whereby we must understand Iudges, and so the Chaldee readeth V. 9. even as (saith Ainsworth) many Captains are in the Hebrew called an head, 1 Chron. 4. 42. And so you have there, references of difficult cases from inferior Courts, to the Priests or to the Judges at Ierusalem. 4. There is also some intimation of a twofold sentence; one concerning the meaning of the Law, according to the sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, V. 11. and this belonged to the Priests, Mal. 2. 7. for the Priests (its not said the Judges) lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth. Another concerning matter of fact, and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do. Grotius upon the place acknowledgeth a udgement of the Priests distinct from that of the Judges: and he add…th a simile from the Roman Synod consisting of seventy Bishops which was consulted in weighty controversies. But he is of opinion that the Priests and Levites did onelyonly end avour to satisfie and reconcile the dissenting parties, which if they did, well, if not, that then they referred the reasons of both parties to the Sanhedrin, who gave forth their decree upon the whole matter. The first part of that which he saith, helpeth me. But this last hath no ground in the Text, but is manife…ly inconsistent therewith, V. 12. The man that will doe presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die. Which proves, iEros…us Confirm th…s. lib. 4 cap. 3 M…ses … ait, intersici …dum …sse illum, qu… vel …, sentemiae vel Judicis assentire nollet Non ergo liberum facit ab i…lo ad … pr… vocare.that the judgement of both was supreme in suo genere, that is, if it was a controver…e ceremoniall, between leprosie and leprosie, or between clean and unclean, Lev. 10. 9, 10, 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmaticall and doctrinall, concerning the sence of the Law, and answering de Jure, when the sence of the Law was controverted by the Iudges of the Cities, then he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, whereof the high Priest was pre…dent, was to die the death. But if the cause was criminall, as between blood and blood, wherein the nature or proofe of the fact, could not be agreed upon, by the Judges of the Cities, then he that would not submit to the decree of the civill Sanhedrin at I…rusalem should die the death. And thus the English Divines in their late annotations, give the sence according to the disjunction, V. 12. While the Priest bringeth warrant from God for the sentenee which he passeth in the cause of man, Ezech. 44. 23, 24. he that contumaciously disobeyeth him disobeyeth God, Luke 10. 16. Matth. 10. 14. The cause is alike if the just sentence of a competent Judge be contemned in secular effaires.
In the third place, we read that David did thus divide the Levites (at that time eight and thirty thousand) foure and twenty thousand of them were to set forward the work of the house of the Lord, foure thousand were porters, and foure thousand praised the Lord with instruments, and six thousand of them were made some schoterim Officers, and some sch…phtim Judges, 1 Chro. 23. 4. Some understand by Schoterim Rulers, or those who were over the charge. To speak properly schophtim were those that gave sentence; schoterim those that lookt to the execution of the sentence, and to the keeping of the law, like the foreign among the Craecians: (for foreign was one thing, foreign another.) So 1 Chro. 26. 29. Chenaniah and his sonnes were for the outward businesse over Israel, fo… Officers (or Rulers or over the charge) and Judges: that is, they were not tied to attendance and service in the Temple, as the Porters and singers, and those that did service about the Sacrifices, Lights, Washings, and such like things in the Temple: but they kMe…ochius in 1. Paral. 23. 4. idem sunt praepositi & Iudices, quorum mun…s erat Israelitarum causas qu… juxta legem finiebantur, judicare, quod patet ex 2. Paral. 19. 8. ubi habemus constituit Jehosaphat in Jerusalem levi…as & sacerdotes, & Princip s famil…arum ex Is…a l, ut judicium & causam domini judicarent.were to judge and give sentence concerning the law and the meaning thereof, when any such controversie should be brought before them from any of the Cities in the Land: They were not appointed to be Officers and Judges over the rest of the Levites to keepe them in order (for which course was taken in another way) but to be Rulers and Judges over Israel, saith the Text, in the outward businesse which came from without to Ierusalem, in judging of which peradventure they were to attend by course, or as they should be called. If any say that all those Levites who were Judges did not sit in judgement at Ierusalem, but some of them in severall Cities of the Land, that there might be the easier accesse to them; I can easily grant it, and I verily believe it was so, and it maketh the more for a Church government in particular Cities, which was subordinate to the Ecclesiasticall Sanh d…in at Ierusalem. However the Levites had a ruling power, and Deut. 31. 28. those who are schoterim in the originall, the Septuagints call foreign, Hierome, Doctores, because their Teachers were Officers over the charge, and had a share in Government. Now no man can imagine that there were no other Officers over the charge not Judges in Israel, except the Levites onelyonly; for it followeth in that same Story, … Chro. 28. 1. And David assembled all the Princes of Israel, the Princes of the Tribes, and the Captains of the Companies that ministred to the King by course, & the Captains over the thousands, &c. Nor yet wil any man say, that the Levites were Officers over the charge, and Judges of the same kind, in the same manner, or for the same ends, with the civill Rulers and Judges, or the military Commanders; or that there was no distinction between the ruling power of the Princes, and the ruling power of the Levites. Where then shall the difference lie, if not in this, that there was an Ecclesiasticall Government, besides the Civill and Military? I grant those Levites did rule and judge not onelyonly in all the businesse of the Lord, but also in the service of the King, 1 Chro. 26. 30, 32. But the reason was, because the Jewes had no other civill Law, but Gods owne Law, which the Priests and Levites were to expound. So that it was proper for that time, and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civill affairs: (nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so) yet the Levites their judging and governing in all the bufines of the Lord, is a patterne left for the entrusting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government: there being no such reason for it, as to make it peculiar to the old Testament, and not common to the New.
The fourth Scripture which proves lSalmas. apparat. ad libros de Primatu p. 302. Quae ad …es sacras ac divinas pertinebant, de his praecipue judicium Sacerdotum fuit, de ali… civilibus & regalib…, praesides … rege constituti, ut patet ex lib. 2. Chro. cap. 19. Titinus in 2. Chro. 19. 11. Ubi not a distinctionem sori seu Magistratus Ec clesiastici & civilis, contra Anglo-Calvinistas & nostros Arminianos.an Ecclesiasticall government and Sanhedrin, is 2 Chro. 19. 8, 10, 11. where Iehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government, which was first instituted by the hand of Moses, and afterward ordered and setled by David. Moreover (saith the Text) in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies, &c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill Sanhedrin at Ierusalem, but that which is to be proved from the place, is an Ecclesiasticall Court, which I prove thus. Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiasticall members, judging Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes, for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end, moderated by an Ecclesiasticall president, having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and controversies brought before them by appeale or reference from inferiour Courts; and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiasticall officers; There it must needs be granted that there was a supream Ecclesiasticall court, with power of Government. But such a Court we finde at Ierusalem in Iehoshaphats time. Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man wil deny. For a Court so constituted, so qualified, and so authorised, is the very thing now in debate. And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption, shall have leave to call it by another name if he please. The assumption I prove by the parts. 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court, as members thereof, with power of decisive suffrage, and with them such of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, as were joyned in the government of that Church; Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines, and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders. And this is one of the Scriptures alledged by our Divines against Bellarmin, to prove that others beside those who are commonly (but corruptly) called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voyce in Synods.
2. Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes were here judged: which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord, V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the Kings matters, V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood, that is, concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage, (it being observed by interpreters that all the lawfull or unlawfull degrees are not particularly expressed, but some onelyonly, and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason, and so it might fall within the cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin.) Though it may be also expounded otherwise, between blood and blood, that is, Whether the murther was wilfull or casuall, (which was matter of fact) the cognisance whereof belonged to the civill Judge; It is further added between Law and Commandement, Statutes and Judgements: noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another, (such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator) or when the sence and meaning of the Law is controverted, (which is not matter of fact, but of right) wherein speciall use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth, A…al. 2. 7. and that not onelyonly ministerially and doctrinally, but judicially and in the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem, such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them, as in 2 Chro. 19. the place now in hand. Yea shall even warn them, &c. Which being spoken to the Court, must be meant of a synedricall Decree, determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law, which should come before them. As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the Kings matters, Erastus page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law, which was to be judged. Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes; for in his sence the Kings matters were the Lords matters. Which himselfe (it seems) perceiving, he immediately yeeldeth our interpretation, that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God; and by the Kings matters, civill things. Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes, per haec res civiles accipere, non pugnabo. If you please (saith he) by those, to understand things pertaining to the worship of God, by these, civill things, I will not be against it.
3. It was for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end, ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord. Its not said against one another, but against the Lord, for two reasons. 1. Because mention had been made of the Commandements, Statutes, and Iudgements, after the generall word Law, V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand (both in this and many other places of Scripture) the Lawes morall, Ceremoniall and Judiciall. Now the case to be judged might be part of the Ceremoniall Law, having reference to God and his Ordinances; and not part of the Judiciall law, or any injury done by a man to his neighbour. And in refer…nce to the morall Law it might …e a trespasse against the first Table, not against the second. 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury, or whatso…ver the controversie was that was brought before them, they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to trespasse against the Lord by mistaking or mis-understanding the Law, or by righting mens wrongs so as to wrong Divine right. And for that end they were to determine the Ius, and the intendment of the law, when it was controverted.
4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelt in the Cities, should come unto them, V. 10. (whether it should come by appeale, or by reference and arbitration) this Court at Ierusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determination of it. So that what was brought from inferiour courts to them, is brought no higher to any other Court.
5. This Court had an Ecclesiasticall Prolocutor or moderator, V. 11. Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord: Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah, was Speaker in the civill Sanhedrin for all the Kings matters. Amariah and Zebadiah were not onelyonly with the Sanhedrin, as members, or as Councellors, but over them as Presidents. Eis summos Magistratus (foreign) ex amicorum numero praeposuit, Amasiam Sacerdotem, & ex Judae tribu Zebadiam, saith Iosephus antiq. l. 9. cap. 1. Erastus confesseth pag. 273. that both of them were Presidents set over the Sanhedrin. and pag. 275. Si Sacerdotem in Dei nomine, Zebadiam autem Regis praesedisse affirmetur, non refragabor. He confesseth also, that the one was more especially to take care of the Lords matters, the other of the Kings matters. What then? He saith they were Presidents both of them to the whole Sanhedrin, not the one to one number, and the other to another. Yet in this he yeeldeth also p. 273. Quanquam non peccet forte, qui Senatores hos per officia distributos di…at, ut alii magis haec, alii magis illa negotia tractarint. Whosoever denieth that that place proveth two distinct Courts, he may be convinced from this one reason, and I shall say to him in the words of Bildad, Jo… …. 8. Enquire I pray thee of the former age, and prepare thy selfe to the s…arch of their fathers: and in the Prophets words, Ierem. 2. 10. Passe over the Isles of Chittim, and see, and send unto Kedar and consider diligently: and see if there be such a thing. Where was it ever heard of, that a Priest was President of a Cou…t, and that in sacred things and causes; that a civill Magistrate was president of a Court, and that in civill causes: and yet not two Courts, but one Court? If both Courts had materially consisted of the same members, of the same Priests, and of the same fathers of Israel, (which yet cannot be proved) this very diversification of the Presidents, and of the subject matter, (if there were no more) will prove two Courts formally distinct. Even as now among our selves the same men may be members of two, or three, or foure, or more Courts, but the distinction of Presidents, and of the subject matter, maketh the Court distinct.
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 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. OnelyOnly 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 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. 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: onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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 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 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) onelyonly 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, 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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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, 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 onelyonly (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.
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 onelyonly 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 duplicate page duplicate page 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 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 monethmonth, &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 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 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. Ier. 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 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. 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 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 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 foreign 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 foreign: that is, those Prophets shall have no hand in the Discipline of my people. The same word they render in other places by foreign, and foreign, yea by both these put together, Prov. 20. 19. where for the Hebrew sod, the Septuagints have foreign. He that revealeth the secret counsels in the Sanhedrin; and it cohereth well with the preceding Verse, where they mention foreign, Governments. Sometime they expound the word by an Episcopall (I mean not Prelaticall) inspection Iob 29. 4. foreign. 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 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 onelyonly 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. mMagdeb 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 Centurists say that those 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 foreign 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 foreign was taken in an Ecclesiasticall notion onelyonly. 3. This Councell did examine Iesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine, and received witnesses against him, and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy, Matth. 27. 57. Marke 14. 53, 55. Ioh. 18. 19. 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: 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 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. but all judgement in whatsovever civill, or criminall offences, falling out among the Jews, meant by matters of wrong or wicked leudness, Acts 18. 14. And having left to the Jewes no government, nor any power of judgement, except in things pertaining to their religion onelyonly 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.
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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.) But this is confuted by the reasons which I have given. Whereunto I further adde these few animadversions.
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, foreign. 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 foreign 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 (foreign) 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.
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. Pauls letters from the high Priest, for biuding and bringing to Ierusalem the Disciples of the Lord Acts 9. 1, 2. also the imprisoning and condemning to death the Saints Acts 26. 10. Unto all this I answer out of nAntiq. Iud. lib. 20. cap 6. Ipsi … pontifices dissiacre cae…erunt à Sacer…otibus & primatibus Hieroso… mi…anorum …ivium, singuléque m…edebant stipati manu au▪ dacissimorum & seditiosorum bominum, … inter se mutu…S ce…tabant convitiis & …: nec erat qui compesceret, quasi vacante urbe Magistratibus. In tantum autem exarsit summorum pontific…m impudentia, ut auderent servos suos in areas mittere, qui auf…rrent debitas Sacerdotibus decimas, aliquótque pauperiores è Sacerdo…um ordine alimentorum in…pia fame deficerent. Tantò plus …um pol…ebat violentia sedi- tiosorum quam justitia.Iosephus, that in that degenerate age the high Priests and such as adhered to them, did use a great deale of violence, whereby they did many things for which they had no just nor lawfull power. So that the Letters and Warrants given out to Saul, and the execution of the same by a cruell and bloody persecuting of the Saints, can not prove the foreign the power and authority which was allowed to the Sanhedrin, but onelyonly the foreign the present prevalent power of the high Priest and his faction in that confusion of affaires; and their extreame malice against the Saints, to have been such as made them to doe things for which they had no legall power nor warrant. And this one Animadversion breakes all the strength of Mr Prynnes argument vindic. page 5. that the Councell of the Jewes had power (which no meere Ecclesiasticall consistory can doe) to scourge, imprison, torture, and out-law offenders, if not to c…ndemne, put to death. (Where he citeth divers Texts, none of which proveth either torturing, or out-lawing, and the most of which, prove not so much as that the Councell of the Jewes at that time had authority to scourge or imprison, as Matth. 5. 22. & 10. 17. Mark 13. 9. Acts 6. 12, 13, 14. & 24. 20. & 25. 15.) The imprisonment of the Apostles was not without the authority of the Captaine of the Temple Acts 4. 1, 3. This captaine of the Temple, is thought by the best interpreters, to have been the Captaine of the Garrison which the Romans placed in the ca…tle Antonia hard by the Temple, and that to prevent tumults and uproares when the people came to the Temple, especially at the solemne feasts in great multitudes. But that the Captaine of the Temple was a civill Magistrate of the Jewes, or one d puted with authority and power from the Sanhedrin, will never be proved. When the Councell thought of slaying the Apostles Acts 5. 33. it was in a sudden passion, being cut to the heart at that which they heard. But Gamaliel tels them Verse 35. Ye men of Israel take heed to your selves foreign warning them as Interpreters take it, of their own danger, from the Romans, if they should put any one to death. The putting of Steven to death was upon pretence of Iudicium zeli, or Ius zelotarum, as Grotius thinks d… Jure belli a… pacis lib. 2. cap 20. sect. 9. If so, it was an extraordinary act. I am sure it was done most tumultuously, disorderly and furiously, before either himselfe was heard speake out, or any sentence was given against him, as is manifest Acts 7. 54, 57, 58.
3. Erastus his glosse upon Iohn 18. 31. It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death, meaning (saith he) for making himselfe a King against Caesar, the cause for which they did chiefly accuse him to Pilate. So likewise Bishop Bilson (a great follower of Erastus) of the perpetuall government of Christs Church cap. 4. But marke the words, Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him and judge him according to your Law; The Jewes therefore said unto him, It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death. Pilate durst not have refused to judge a man who made himselfe a King against Caesar, nor durst he have put it over upon the Jewes to have judged one in that which concerned Caesars crowne. Nay, as soone as the Jewes objected, If thou let this man goe, thou art not Caesars friend; for whosoever maketh himselfe a King, speaketh against Caesar. Pilate when he heard that, went in againe, and sate down on the Judgement seat Iohn 19. 12. 13. Therefore when Pilate said to the Jewes take ye him, and judge him according to your law, he spake it of matters of their Law. The Councell of the chiefe Priests, Elders and Scribes had given sentence against Christ de ju…e, that he was guilty of blasphemy, and thereupon (not having power to put any man to death) they led him to Pilate, Matth. 26. 65, 66. with Matth. 27. 1, 2. Marke 14. 63, 64. with Marke 15. 1. Luke 22. 71. with Luke 23. 1. Pilate unwilling to meddle against Christ, waves the businesse in the Judgement-hall, I perceive (would he say) that this man is accused of such things as concerne your Law and your Religion; therefore take him and judge him according to your Law. They reply, in reference to that which Pilate did drive at, It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death. If they had meant, for causes which concerned Caesars Crown, it had been not onelyonly an impertinent reply, but a yeelding to Pilates intention; for he might have said, I doe not meane, that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar, but for that which concerneth your owne Law and Religion. Therefore certainely the answer which the Jewes made to Pilate, did reply, that though they had power to judge a man in that which concerned their Law and Religion, yet they had no power to put any man to death, no not for that which concerned their Law.
4. There are severall passages in the story of Paul which shew us, that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law, yet they were accusers, not Judges, in civill or capitall punishments, I meane when a man was accused as worthy of bonds or of death, though it were for a matter of their Law, they had no liberty to judge, but onelyonly to accuse. The Jewes drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio, even for a matter of their law. This fellow (say they to Gallio) perswadeth men to worship God, contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended onelyonly an Ecclesiasticall censure, their recourse had been either to the Sanhedrin, or at least to the Synagogue, but because they intended a corporall temporall punishment, which neither the Sanhedrin nor the Synagogue had power to inflict, therefore they must prosecute Paul before Gallio; whose answer was to this purpose, that if it had been a matter of wrong or wicked leudnesse, it had been proper for him to have judged it, but that since it was no such thing, he would not meddle in it, knowing also, that the Jewes had no power to doe it by themselves. Againe, Acts 23. 28, 29. Claudius Lysias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus, and when I would have knowne the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their Councell. Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their Law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. That which made Lysias interpose in the businesse, and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jewes, was the Jewes designe to put Paul to death, under colour of judging him according to their Law (which was the pretence made by Tertullus Acts 24. 6.) Now in that which was to be punished, either by death, or so much as by bonds, Lysias conceives the Jewes to be no competent Judges, therefore he brings Paul into the councell of the Jewes, not to be judged by them, but to know what accusation they had against him. For the same reason Paul himselfe did decline going to Ierusalem, to be judged there, no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jewes, that accusation being so far driven on, as to make him worthy of death. His accusers (saith Festus to King Agrippa) brought none accusation of such things as I supposed, but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition, and of one Iesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions▪ I asked him whether he would goe to Ierusalem, and there be judged of these matters, Acts 25. 18, 19, 20. This Paul had declined vers. 10. I stand at Caesars judgement seat (said he) where I ought to be judged. And why? but because his accusation was capitall, even in that which concerned the Law of the Jewes, and he knew the Jewes at that time had no power of capitall judgements. Some have alledged this example of Paul for appeales from Presbyteries or Synods to the civill Magistrate: by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul, was a Ecclesiasticall, not a civill Court.
5. Besides all this Erastus his opinion is strongly confuted by that which Constantinus L'Empereur Annot. in remp. Jud. pag. 404. to 407. proving that the Jewes after the thirtieth yeere of Christ, had no power of punishing with death; for proofe hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara, that forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin (which had in former times exercised capitall judgements) did remove from Hierusalem, quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere, when they perceived that they could not exercise capitall judgements, they said let us remove out of this place, lest we be guilty: it being said Deut. 17. 10. according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee: whence they collected, that if they were not in that place, they were not obliged to capitall judgements: and so they removed. And if you would know whe ther he tels us out of Rosch Hasschana, they removed from Hieru salem to Iabua, thence to Ousa thence to Sc…aphrea, &c. He that desires to have further proofes for that which hath been said, may read Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talmud. & rabbin. pag. 514, 515. He proves that Iudicia criminalia, criminall judgements did cease, and were taken away from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple. This he saith is plaine in Talmud Hierosol. in lib. Sanhedrin cap. 7. in Talmud Babyl. in Sanbedrin fol. 41. 1. in Aboda z…ru fol. 8. 2. in Schab. fol. 15. 1. in Iuchasin fol. 51. 1. Majen…on. in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect. 13. He cites also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a hainous crime even for lying with a beast ought to be adjudged to death; but when one said that he ought to die, it was answered, that they had no power to put any man to death. And this saith Dr. Bux…orf is the very same, which the Jewes said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City, which was in the 71 yeere of Christ, his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jewes neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. And I further make this inference, that since the Sanhedrin which had power of life and death, did remove from Hierusalem forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple (for which see also Tzemach David. edit. Hen. Vorst. pag. 89. and so about three yeeres before the death of Christ; it must needs follow that the Councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in, and before Christs passion, was not a civill Magistracy, nor the civill Sanhedrin, but an Ecclesiasticall San…edrin. Whence also it follows, that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to goe with their complaints, was not the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes, (as Mr Prynne takes it) for that civill Court of Justice had then removed from Hierusalem, and had lost its authority in executing Justice, I. Coch annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. cap. 1. s…ct. 13. beareth witnesse to the same story above mentioned, that forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin did remove from its proper seat (where he also mentions the ten stations or degrees of their removing) and Iam tum cessarunt judicia capitalia, saith he. Now at that time the capitall judgements did cease. Thus we have three witnesses singularly learned in the Jewish Antiquities. Unto these adde Casau…on exerc. 16. anno 34. num. 76. He holds that though the Councell of the Jewes had cognizance of the offence (for otherwise how could they give a reason or cause when they demanded justice) in which respect the Councell did judge Christ to be guilty of death, Marke 14. 64. yet their Councell had then no more power of capitall punishments, which saith he, the more learned moderne writers doe demonstrate è Iuchasin, and from other Talmudicall writings; he addeth that this power of putting any man to death was taken from the Jewes some space before this time when they said to Pilate, It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death: for this power was taken from them, saith he, forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple, as the Rabbinicall writers doe record.
I have thus largely prosecuted my last argument, drawn from the New Testament, mentioning the Councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes.
And I trust the twelve arguments which have been brought may give good satisfaction toward the proofe of an Ecclesiasticall Jewish Sanhedrin.
The chiefe objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civill Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes, is this. That neither the Talmud nor the Talmudicall writers mention any such distinction, but speake onelyonly of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71, and of other two Courts, which sate the one at the doore of the Court before the Temple, the other at the gate which entereth to the mountaine of the Temple. There were also Courts in the Cities where capitall cases were judged by three and twenty, pecuniall mults by three.
Answ. It must be remembred that not onelyonly the Talmudicall Commentators, but the Talmud it selfe, is much later than the time of the Sanhedrin, and the integrity of the Jewish government. Yea later (by some Centuries) than the destruction of the Temple and City of Ierusalem. So that the Objection which is made is no stronger than as if one should argue thus, There is no mention of Elderships constituted of Pastors and Ruling Elders (without any Bishop having preeminence over the rest) neither in the Canon Law, nor decretals of Popes, nor in the Booke of the Canons of the Roman Church. Therefore when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome, there was no such Eldership in that Church, constituted as hath been said. But if the Ecclesiasticall Government either of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of the Jewes can be proved from Scripture (as both may) it ought to be no prejudice against those truths, that they are not fou…d in the Writers of af…ertimes, and declining ages. Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps of a Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, even in the Talmudicall writers, in the opinion of Constantinus L'Empereur, and in that other passage cited by D. Buxtorf out of Elias. Of which before. And so much concerning an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes.
If after all this, any man shall be unsatisfied in this particular, yet in the issue, such as are not convinced that there was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes, distinct from their civill Sanhedrin, may neverthelesse be convinced not by the former arguments, but by other Mediums, that there was an Ecclesiasticall government among the Jewes distinct from their civill government. For it belonged to the Priests, (not to the Magistrates or Judges) to put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and cleane. And the Priests (not the Magistrates) are challenged for not putting difference between the holy and prophane Ezech. 22. 26. And this power of the Priests was not meerly doctrinall or declarative, but decisive, binding, and juridicall, so farre as that according to their sentence men were to be admitted as cleane, or excluded as uncleane. Yea in other cases, as namely in trying and judging the scandall of a secret and unknown murther, observe what is said of the Priests, Deut. 21. 5. by their word shall every controversie and every stroke be tried. Yea themselves were Judges of controversies Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my judgements. Where the Ministers of the Gospell are principally intended, but not without an allusion unto and parallel with the Priests of the old Testament, in this point of jurisdiction. Suppose now it were appointed by Law, that Ministers shall separate or put difference between the holy and prophane, that by their word every controversie concerning the causes of suspension or sequestration of men from the Sacrament, shall be tried; that in controversie they shall stand in judgement, and judge according to the word of God: Would not every one looke upon this, as a power of government put into the hands of Ministers. And none readier to aggravate such government, then the Erastians. Yet all this amounts to no more, then by the plaine and undeniable Scriptures above cited, was committed to the Priests. Suppose also, that men were kept backe from the Temple and from the Passeover, not for any morall uncleannesse, but for ceremoniall uncleannesse onelyonly (which is to be afterwards discussed) yet the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies concerning mens legall uncleannesse, according to which judgement and decision, men were to be admitted to, or kept backe from the Temple and Passover (yea sometime their owne houses, as in the case of leprosie) could not choose but entitle them to a power of government, which power was peculiar to them, and is not in all the old Testament ascribed to Magistrates or Judges. And as the exercise of this power did not agree to the Magistrate, so the commission, charge, and power given to those who did keepe backe the uncleane, was not derived from the Magistrate; for it did belong to the intrinsecall sacerdotall authority 2 Kings 11. 18. The Priest (Iehojada) appointed Officers over the house of the Lord. The 70 thus, foreign. These Officers or overseers over the Temple, were appointed by Iehojada, for keeping backe the uncleane, as Grotius upon the place, following Iosephus, hath observed. Compare 2 Chro. 23. 19. And he (Iehojada) set the Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in▪ For the same end did he appoint these overseers over the Temple, 2 Kings 11. It was also appointed by the Law, that the man who should doe any thing presumptuously, contrary to the sentence of the Priests, should die the death, as well as the man who should doe any thing presumptuously, contrary to the sentence of the Judge, Deut. 17. 9, 12.
Finally, the high Priest was a ruler of the people, and to him is that law applied, Thou shalt not speake evill of the Ru…ers of thy people Acts 23. 5. Which is not meant onelyonly in regard that he was president of the Sanhedrin; for there was an Ecclesiasticall ruling power, which was common with him to some other Priests, 2 Chro. 35. 8. Hilkiah the high Priest, and Zachariah and Iehiel Priests of the second order, are called Rulers of the house of God: being in that very place thus distinguished from other Priests and Levites imployed in the manuall worke of the Temple about Sacrifices and the like.