The Disarmers Dexterities Examined, Chapter 5 · Section 11
SECT. XI.
David's ordering the courses of the Priests. Solomon's Dedication of the Temple. Hezekiah's Ecclesiasticall Acts, Josiah's. S. Paul's Appeale from the Jews Sanhedrim to Caesar, Act. 25.9, 10. Judged before me, v. 9. Capital Judgement taken from the Jews. Justinian's Ecclesiastical laws in the foreign. S. W. his falsifications and answers. Justinian's charge of Tyranny brought in at a dead lift. Theodosius no Tyrant.
THe instances from the Jewish practice now follow: And to the first, of Davids ordering the courses of the Priests; his answer being the same that had lately been given me by Mr. Cawdry (a person of somewhat d fferent principles,) viz. that David was a Prophet as well as a King, I referre him to my answer *Account of 3. Diatr. ch. 5. Sect. 4. n. 6. 8.there, that this was no act of Davids prophetike, but meerly of his Kingly office, founded on prudential considerations, and the change of times, God having formerly disposed otherwise of it. But it seems his second thoughts have better advised S. W. in this matter, for upon them he presently, in effect, retracts this answer (onelyonly it went against his heart to lose so much pretious inke as must have per…shed by blotting it out againe) and resolves there was in this no streine of an higher jurisdiction (by higher I suppose he meanes higher than is ordinary and regular for Kings, and then sure twas done by the King, not the Prophet) and that as his greater zeale might invite him, so his exacter k…owledge might make his assistance requisite to order the courses of the Priests.] And then it seemes I was in the right, and my instance was pertinent to inferre my conclusion, that for matters of outward order in the Church, Princes were very competent, and no doubt were indued with power and authority from God, or else their zeale and knowl…dge could not have justified the interposing their assistance in them.
To the 2. of Solomon's consecrating the Temple, he answers, it was performed by offering sacrifice, which he himself offered not, but the Priests, so as his consecrating it was nothing else but causing them to consecrate it.]
I reply, that besides the Priests part in this work, the offering of sacrifice (which I never imagined to belong to Solomon, nor from thence pretended it lawfull for the Christian King thus to invade the Sacerdotal office, in baptizing, consecrating the Host, or assisting any of the foreign, that even now Constantine spake of) many other acts there were, conducing to that one main of dedicating, or consecrating the Temple, 1. calling the Assembly, and afterward dissolving it again; 2. disposing and appointing the actions of the Priests; 3. making the oration on that occasion; and lastly, the prayer and the blessing of the congregation of Israel, kneeling on his knees before the altar, and spreading forth his hands toward heaven, in the presence of all the congregation; and all these being Ecclesiastical acts, were yet performed by Solomon, 1 Kings 8. and that was all that I designed from that instance, and there neither is, nor can be any question of it.
To the t…ird, of Hezekiah, and Josiah, there was more due than his Sarcasme will any way defray, (and yet that is all he can afford them) Reforming, within his dominions, the affaires of the Church, exercising the foreign), or inspection over the Clergie, when they neglect their duty, the highest, as well as the lower sort of them, is the least that can proportionably be inferred from what is there done by the commandement of the King Hezekiah, 2 Kings 1.18. and 2 Chro. 28. in removing the high places, breaking the brazen Serpent in pieces, and cleansing of the Temple, and restoring the Sacrifice, and the musick of the Temple, and whatsoever was then wanting, or neglected in Gods service, by default of Priests or Levites: And so in like manner, from King Josiah's act in repairing the breaches of Gods house, and destroying Idolatrie, and restoring, by edict, the solemn observation of the Passeover—2 King. 22. and 23. To the nothing which he returnes to these instances, all that I need say, is, that my conclusion is inferred, and he hath not attempted to invalidate it.
The next instance was that of S. Paul, appealing from the judgment of the Chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar; which if it had any infirmity in it, were not in reason to be imputed to me, but to him from whom I cited it, Gregor. de He mburg, a person formerly well reputed of by Pope Pius II. till by defence of the just rights of his Prince, Sigismund Duke of Austria, he fell under his displeasure. But it seems though my citation were never so true, yet his name is not able to secure the Doctor from a most grievous mistake, such an one as hath brought a very ill report upon him for the like in almost every place of Scripture he hath y…t pro…uced.
What this so unlimited a charge signifies, I thank God I cannot divine, but that S. W. is now a drawing his Chancery-Bill, and thinks it not material, what degree or semblance of truth there is in any thing he casts in. This hath formerly appeared as often as he hath made the like charge, and 't s not improbable it may yet prove so here also, when we have heard what he hath to object. S. Paul, saith he, appealed not from the tribunal of the Jewes, but from the tribunal of Portius Festus, a Roman Governour, unto Caesar himself, and this he will prove so plainly and convincingly, from Act. 25.9, 10 that he shall need onelyonly to put down the words in our own translation, and so leave the Doctor to be accused either for wilfully abusing, or ignorantly mistaking them. The words he recites, are these, But Festus willing to doe the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things bef…re me? Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgement seat, where I ought to be judged.]
These words then are left by their own native force, without any aid from S. W. to inferre his conclusion, that Paul appealed not from the tribunal of the Jews, but from the tribunal of Portius Festus to Caesar himself: Let us see how they will be able to do it: And first, to omit the harder part, the negative, let us examine what they say for the affirmative, that he here appealed from the tribunal of Festus. But for this 'tis most certain, that this text alleged can no way possibly conclude it. It is onelyonly an insisting on his right to be judged by Portius Festus, in opposition in going up to Jerusalem. This the very words by him alleged do evidence, Festus then hath him before him at Caesarea, where he kept the Assizes, v. 6. and he is now sitting on the judgement seat, and it being rhe Jewes request, v. 3. that he might be sent to Jerusalem, Festus to gratifie them, v 9 proposes the removing him thither, which Paul di ectly disclaimes and refuses, and challenges his right, as a Roman, I stand, saith he, at Caesar's judgement seat; he means certainly this tribunal of Festus, Caesars Procurator, where he stands already, and where, saith he, as a Roman I ought to be judged; he makes no farther appeale as yet in these words from the tribunal, before which he stands, but requires to be judged there. This being cleared, S. W. his affirmative part hath certainly failed him, that of his appealing from Festus's tribunal, in those two verse alleged by him, as the onelyonly medium to conclude it. His appeal to Caesar himself, or to Augustus's hearing, follows in the next words, ver 11. and that expr…sly, not from Festus's judging him there at Cesarea, at the Roman barre, but from his delivering him to the Jewes to be judged at Jerusalem, and that I hope is contrary enough to his neg…tive his not appealing from the tribunal of the Jewes.] Nothing can be more manifest, If, saith Paul, I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die, (let him be judged there by Festus, and whatsoever the event be, he willingly submits to it without any appeale from that Judicature of Festus, before which now he st…nds) but if there be none of these thing…, whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them (i. e. to the Jewes) I appeal unto Caesar. So that 'tis not from Portius Festus judging him, that he appeales to Caesar himself (if Festus would judge him, he would readily submit to it, and requires it as his privilege to be so judged) but from his delivering him to the Jews to be judged at Jerusalem, i. e from that tr…bunal of their Sanhedrim (which represents the Christian Church & where the high priest was the p incipal person, c. 24.1) he makes his appeal to the secular Magistrate, the Roman Em…erour himself, and hopes for much more justice from him, though an heathen P…ince, than he doth from such a tribunal of Ananias and his consistory.
If thi be not yet plain enough, then 1. remember where 'twas that Paul was arraigned, (before Lysias the Roman Commander sent him to Caesarea) at the Coun̄cil or Sanhedrim of the Jewes, Act. 23.1. where the High priest sat down to judge him after the law of Moses, v. 3. & from among them, i. e. that Council, the soldiers, by the chief Captains cōmand, take him by force, v 10. thither again they purposed to signifie to the chief Captain, that he should be brought on the morrow, v. 15. but upon discovery of the conspiracy to take away his life by the way, he is sent by safe conduct to Caesarea, v. 23. Then upon Festus's coming to the Province, the Jews renew their suit foreign, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, c. 25.3. this Festus then denied, v. 4 meaning to judge him by the imperial law at Caesarea, the Iewes being required to go and prosecute him there, v. 5. When nothing could there be proved against him, v 7. Festus having so far changed his resolution, to do the Iews a pleasure, proposes his going up to Ierusalem, v. 9. the e to be judged before him (what is meant by that phrase, we shall see anon) and this he accounts of, as a delivering to them, and from that it is that he makes his appeale to Caesar, and that I suppose to be from the Iewes tribunal, and so Festus expresses the meaning of it, v 20. I asked him (saith he to Agrippa) whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judg'd of these matters; upon that occasion again expresly mentioning his appeale to the hearing of Augustus, in opposition to his going up to Jerusalem to be judged.
There is but one possible difficulty which appears to remain in this matter, and that is, what is meant by his being judged before me, i. e. before Festus at Jerusalem, c. 25.9 for that may be thought to infer, that it was Festus's Tribunal, and not the Iews, from which he appealed. To this I answer, that the power of the Iewish Sanhedrim at this time was but a very limited power, they might not put any man to death, Ioh. 18.31. and consequently when any was judged by them, if the offence seemed capital, the Roman Procurator was to be called to assist, and thus to sentence, as in the crucifixion of Christ it was manifest. And this is all the reason of this phrase [before me] because treason against Caesar being put in amongst his accusations, the Iews could not judge of such matters, but only take upon them the part of accusers, as we therefore see they do, c. 25.2 whereas for other things concerning their own law, their tribunal was competent to take audience, and give judgment.
And this is the importance of those words of Festus, Act. 25.20. wherein he gives the reason to Agrippa, why he aked him, whether he would go to Jerusalem, there to be judged of these matters, i. e. of those questions, or accu…at ons, concerning the Jewish superstition, or religion— because Festus doubted, or was ignorant of them, knew not what judgement to passe in them, and therefore would have had him to Jerusalem, for the Sanhedrim there to take cognizance, and judge of such matters, himself going also, there to sit upon him, in case any capital crime, censurable by the Roman lawes, should be proved against him. And from the former of these it is, i. e. the Sanhedrim's judicature, that Paul appeales, as hath hitherto appeared, and onelyonly from that, and so not from Festus's Judicature; For that he was already under at Caesarea (as much as he could be at Jerusalem) and yet appeals not from that, but saith he ought to be judged there, and onelyonly averts the going up to Jerusalem. A visible difference there is betwixt his being judged by Festus at Caesarea, and at Jerusalem before him. In the former he stood onelyonly at Caesar's judgement seat to be judged by none but his Procurator, according to the Roman law; and if he were found guilty of no capital crime, rebellion, and the like, he was sure to be set free; and this he feared not, wheresoever he was judged; but if he went up to Jerusalem to be judged there, then whatsoever his innocence were as to such capital accusations, he might be deemed guilty of some breaches of the Judaical law, and for them be judged to other punishments, such as remained in their power, by the Sanhedrim, and besides the high Priests, and chief of the Jewes, that pressed so earnestly that he might be remanded to Jerusalem, had a treacherous purpose in it, having laid an ambush in the way to kill him, Act. 25.3. and so Paul had all reason to appeale from this proposal of delivering him to be judged by the Jewes, though none to distrust Festus's sentence at Caes…rea: and so still it is most visible, that from this it was, that his appeale was made, and not from Festus's bench at Caesarea, which was the thing I undertook to conclude from these passages.
Thus have I clearly deduced this whole matter, and evidenced the truth of Gregorius de Heimburg his observation, not that that Emperor was head of the Christian Church, but that S. Paul expected reliefe from this heathen Emperor against the oppressions of the high priest, and his Sanhedrim, which is all that from Heimburg was pretended.
And then who will ever take S. W. his word againe about a grievous mistake, who yet never had the luck to be himselfe in the right, when he came in the greatest rage of Discipline to chastise mistakers.
If there be not in all his darts some desperate incur…ble poyson (by strength of the old Aphorisme, Cal…mniare fortiter, aliquid haerebit) I shall for o…ce adventure to advise S W. if it be but for his own interests, never to cry [grievous mistakes] againe, till he hath gotten some firmer title to infallibility, then yet he hath attein'd to, lest still it be the looking-glasse, and not the perspective which helps him to all the mistakes.
In the last place he is come to that meannesse of changing my words, that he may get some advantage of carping at them, which otherwise he must misse of I said that in the foreign, the wh…le third Book is made up of Justinians, that is of the Emperors, constitutions de Episcopis, Clericis, & sacris, concerning Bishops, Clergie-men, and sacred Offices. And he will reade this, that Justinians third book is mad of Constitutions de Episcopis, Clericis & laicis, Bishops, Priests, lay-men, and then answer, that all the lawes found there must not be necessarily Justinians.] What will this dealing advance to, by and by? First, laicis must be suborned to turn out sacris, and that we may be sure the Printer had no hand in this. 1. the Englishing it l…y-men, instead of sacr…d Offices, and 2. the no notice of either of these in the Errata, is full evidence. And then what trust is to be given to such fingers? 2. How came we by the mention of Justinians third book? Or what third book doth he mean? I spake of the third book of the foreign, which if he knew any thing in the affaires, or Canons of the Church, is a Synopsis of LX books universi Juris Romani set out 80. yeares since in Greek and Latine with scholia, by Jo: Leunclavius. And if he knew not what belonged to this, why might he not have softly glided over it, rather than have adventured blindfold, and in the first words changed th…s into Justinians third book of He knew not what, and then solemnly applied answer to it, which cannot possibly be accommodated to the matter in hand. Keepers, saith he, of lawes, use not onelyonly to put in th…ir law bookes those constitutions themselves made, but also those they are to see observed, among which are the Canons and lawes of the Church made before by Councels and other Ecclesiasticall powers.] But this cannot be applied to the present instance. Tis certein, Justinian personally made many foreign concerning Ecclesiasticall matters, which are now visible in his Novels, each of them clothed with those particular individuating circumstances of the authors name, and the persons to whom they were written, which remove all possib…e doubt in this matter, and the third book of the foreign is a collection or breviate of such as these, which are thus at large to be found in his Novells, and there discern'd to be none but his. Such luck hath S. W. constantly, when he combates blindfold.
But he satisfies not himselfe with this fi…st answer; he hath a second, that Justinian may make constitutions of his own concerning Bishops and Clergy-men, in what relates to temporall offices, or as they are parts of the civil Common Wealth.] But it is evident if he will now upon advertisement turne to the Basilica, or to the N…vels themselves, that many of them are of matters purely Ecclesiastical; I must not adventure losing my reader, and my selfe, in reciting them.
But because this answer was so feeble also, a third is called in, to relieve at a dead lift: If neither of these answers will serve, If he shall be found to have made any lawes concerning them, and with ut the authority of the Church, then, saith he, let the Dr. prove he had power to make such, minding me of the note of Tyrannie which is objected against Justinian. But 1. this is strange hewing asunder, instead of untying of knots, and d…fficulties; If the argument could be answer'd any other way, then Iustinian may stand right in the Court; but if S. W. be so driven up to the wall, that he have no way to invent for his escape, then in great sadnesse Iustinian must be cont…nt to be a Tyrant, rather then S. W. be foild in this manner 2. though Iustinian for some other unkindnesse to the Pope, have been lookt on unkindly by the Romanists, and call'd by some ill names, so long after his death; yet I believe S. W. will not be able to produce any Romanist, which hath affixt this ill character on him upon this single score, which alone I have now insisted on, making of constitutions for the good gov rnment of the Church, and then I hope he that hath offended once, is not under a necessity of doing all things amisse; if so, truely S. W. will have a hard time of it, can never redeeme, as long as he lives, what he hath offended in this one leafe, if as he judges this Emperor, he shall be judged. But to conclude, 3. my argument vouched the Theodosian Code for decrees in Ecclesiastical affaires, and this reserve of the Emperors being a Tyrant is no way appliable to him; and so we have done with his last answer.
For the appendage of this argument, and answer concerning the Canons of the Councils receiv…ng their authority and publication from the Emperor, I need not reply, having never pretended, or seemed to pretend what he charges on me, concerning the Emperors Negative voice in the Council; what I pretended, I spake out in plaine words, that the Canons have been mostly set out, and received their authority by the Emperors (and this receiving their authority, is I suppose, in order to their powerfull reception in their dominions) and this he acknowledges in the fullest latitude, not onelyonly mostly, but alwayes, and so we are for once friends, though he knew not of it, and no man knowes how little while it will last. As it is, twill be a good season to sit downe in peace, at this end of the 6. Section.