The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 15

The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication · Religious polemic · Chapter 15

p. 398CHAP. XV.

Queſt. 11.

Whether Eraſtus do validly confute a Presbytery.

Erastus. What conſequence is this? Lev. 10. God commandethAnſwer to the l. 4. c. 3. of Eraſtus. p. 266. 267 how Eraſtus confuteth a Presbytery. Aaron and his ſonnes to put a difference between the holy and prophane, the cleane and the unclean, this difference they were to teach the people out of the Law; Ergo, God hath ordained a Colledge of Eccleſiaſticall Senators to exerciſe the power of the Civill Magiſtrate? it is like this; God commanded the Paſtors to teach the people, and diſpenſe the Sacraments; Ergo, he inſtituted a Presbytery in place of the Magiſtrate.

p. 399Anſ. This conſequence is ſo ſtrong (though the conſequent be not ours) to prove a Synedrie, that Eraſtus ſhall never be able to refute it; for that the Prieſts might teach the people, they were to judge and governe the people, and w…re to judge between the holy and prophane, not onelyonly that the Prieſts might informe the p…oples minds, but that the Prieſts and Levites might, 2 Chron. 9. 8▪ 9 10. Deut. 17. 8, 9 give judgement between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between ſtroake and ſtroake, being matters of controverſie, and hard to be judged by the inferiour judges; theſe concerned not the inſtruction of the people as matters of opinion, as Eraſtus imagineth; but they concerned the governing of the people in juſtice, that v. 12. the man that will doe preſumptuouſly, or will not hearken unto the Prieſt or the judge, ſhall die the death? Was not this to governe the people and to judge them? Certainly Eraſtus in the ſame Chapter ſaith ſo, to wit, that there was one common Synedrim of civill judges, Prieſts and Levites at Jeruſalem, that the Prieſts and Levites were Iudges in capitall matters, and gave out the ſentence of death, de capite & ſanguine, Page 27…. Page 269. 270.and he proveth page 270. 271. that the Prieſts were civill judges, and did give ſ…tences of blood, of life and d…ath: Ergo, the Prieſts did not diſcerne between the clean and the unclean, between blood and blood onelyonly, that they might teach the people, but that they might regulate their owne practiſe in judgement, and govern the people; yea that the Prieſts might pronounce ſome unclean, and to be put out of the Campe ſo many dayes, that they might debar out of the Sanctuary the uncl…an, the uncircumciſed, the ſtrangers, and Lev. 10. the end of judging and governing is expreſly ſet down, v. 10. and ſo a judicature, and the other end, v. 11. that they may teach the children of Iſrael all the Statutes which the Lord hath ſpoken by the hand of Moſes. 2. From the Elders preaching the Word and diſpenſing the Sacraments, ſimply we inferre no judicatureA Church judicature in the Iewiſh Church Deut. 17.Deut 17 at all, farre leſſe a politick judicature, which we doe not aſcribe to the Prieſts, for Iohn Baptiſt both preached the Word and baptized, and yet was no judge, nor did he erect any Church judicature, but from the power of the keyes given to the Church, and exerciſed by the Church, Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 15, 16, &c. 1 Cor. 5. 1, 2, 3. &c. Revel. 2. 1, 2, 3, &c. we inferre a Church judicature, we never placed a Presbytery in place of the Magiſtrate; p. 400for it is no more the Magiſtrates place, then to ſacrifice is the place of the Magiſtrate.

Erastus. J wonder that you ſeeke your Presbytery in Moſes Law,Page 267. all yours, ſay the Synedrie, Chriſt ſpeaketh of did riſe after the captivity, at leaſt when the ſword was taken from the Iewes. They ſay David and Solomon did puniſh vices, they approve Auguſt. 39. queſt. in Deut. that Excommunication doth now what putting to death did of Old, and deny any Excommunication to have beene in the Church of the New Teſtament.

Anſ. Eraſtus declares himſelfe to be a childe, not verſed in Proteſtant Divines, for we except Muſculus, Gualther, Bullinger, ſome except Aretius, all our Proteſtant Divines goe the way Beza goeth. 2. Let him produce any of ours, who ſay that the Synedry that Chriſt ſpeaketh of, was Iewiſh, and ours ſay that Chriſt alludeth to the Iewiſh Synedrie: But all (few excepted) that Chriſt Mat. 18. ſpeaketh of the Chriſtian Church to be erected. 3. The Kings of Iſrael puniſhed ſcandals, but that is not enough, did they governe the Church, pronounce who were clean or unclean? or middle with the charge of Eccleſiaſtick Government committed to Aaron and his ſonnes? 4. We ſay with Auguſtine, that ſome that were killed of old, are to be Excommunicated now, Auguſtine ſpeaketh not of all, and what is that againſt us?

Erastus. Not any but your ſelf (Beza) ſay that Moſes ſpeakethPage 268. of th…ſe ſame perſons, things, and office, Levit. 10. and Deut. 17. in Levit. 10. he ſpeaketh onelyonly of the Prieſthood, and Deut. 17. of the Iudges or Magiſtrats.

Anſ. Beza expoundeth the one place by the other, but he ſaith not theſe perſons, things and office are in both places. 2. Eraſtus onelyonly contradicteth Beza, and ſaith Moſes ſpeaketh of the Magiſtrates, Deut. 17. But he is refuted by the Spirit of God, 2 Chron. 19. 8, 9. who repeating the very words of Deut. 17. ſaith the Iudges here were Prieſts, Levites, and heads of Families, whom all men deny to be Magiſtrates.

Erastus. You ſay Deut. 17. mention is made of blood, of the cauſe of Pleas, not becauſe the Synedrie judged of the fact, but becauſe they anſwered the true ſenſe of the Law; I ſay, whether they anſwered of the fact, or of the Law, they ſentenced judicially of life and death, ſo that there was no provocation from them to the civill judicature, for p. 401he was put to death, who would not ſtand to their ſentence, but you deny that any politick cauſes or matters of blood or death, belongs to your Presbytery.

Anſ. 1. Beza ſaid well the fact, and the putting of the man to death, which is the aſſumption and concluſion belonged to the civill judge, not to the Prieſts; But the queſtio juris, the queſtion of Law belonged to the Eccleſiaſticall judicature of Prieſts, Levites and Elders; and it is evident, that it was a caſe of conſcience, concerning a matter, or an admirable cauſe that cannot be determined by the judges in the city, they not being ſo well verſed in the Law as the Prieſts, whoſe lips ſhould preſerve knowledge, Mal. 2. 7. Therefore it is not a fact, that may be cleared by Witneſſes, there is not ſuch difficulty in facts, except in adultery, or ſecret Murthers, the word commeth from foreign to admire, or to be ſeparated from ſenſe and reaſon, Lament. 1. 9. Gen. 18. 14. Is there any thing hard to, or …id from Jehovah? 2. They are called foreign cauſes or matters of contention, Vatablus cauſa inſolita & difficilior: Our tranſlation hath it, matters of controverſie. 3. It is ſaid, thou ſhalt come foreignand inquire or diligently ſearch out. 4. The Prieſts and Levites ſhall ſhew thee the ſentence of judgement, ſo it is evident that the Prieſts and Levites did not ſo much judge, as declare and reſolve the law-part of which the inferiour judges did doubt, for the difficulty of the queſtion, as Saul came to Samuel the Seer, to aske concerning his fathers aſſes, and it is true bloods and ſtroakes came under the cognizance of the Prieſts, but as bloods comes before Lawyers, and thoſe that are expert in the civill Law, in the Parliament of England and Scotland, the Lawyers as Iudges put no man toThe Prieſts put no man to death. death, the King could ſay, fall upon ſuch an evill doer, and kill him, and the judges and Princes might put to death. But you never read that the Prieſts, yea or the High Prieſt ſaid, fall upon ſuch an ill doer and kill him, nor was this any Law of God, that the Eccleſiaſtick Sanedrim, ſhould put to death and politically condemne any man to die, or command any mans blood to be ſhed, they but declared and reſolved a caſe of conſcience to the judges, and a plea, and ſaid, This is a matter of blood, and deſerveth death by the Law of God, and he that hath done ſuch a fact in point of Law, ought to die. But there were two things left to the civil… Iudges. 1. Whether this man hath done ſuch a fact. 2. A ſitting in the Tribunall, and p. 402ſaying, I or we command and decree ſuch a man who hath ſhed ſuch blood, hath inflicted ſuch a ſtroake on this woman who is with childe of living birth, to be ſtoned to death, to be hanged. Eraſtus hath not proved, nor never ſhall prove that the High Prieſts, Prieſts or Levites, by Gods Law did thus judge any: That Ananias commanded Paul to be beaten, and the lictors of the High Prieſt ſmote Chriſt on the face at the command of the Prieſts, was againſt Law, they had no power ſo to doe by Law, yea, and our Presbyteries that judge of ſorceries, witchcrafts, inceſts, adulteries, and other capitall crimes, and of bloods in point of Gods Law, what is witchcraft, what is inceſt, that the husband that ſtriketh his wife being with quick▪child, and killeth the birth is a Murtherer; but that they judicially ſay, ſuch a woman is a Witch, and ſo ordain her to be hanged and burnt, and ſuch a husband is a Murtherer, and decerne him to die, is utterly unlawfull, therefore this is an ignorant ſpeech of Eraſtus: This ſynedrie of Prieſts and Levites, whether in point of Law, or in point of …act, did give out ſentences of death, therefore they were politick judges, it followeth not; and that the Prieſts ſaid, this man deſerveth to die, and therefore they gave out, as civill judges, ſentences of death, (for the civill judge draweth not the ſword with his owne hand,) is a foul conſequence; for lawyers do ſay ſuch a man is worthy to die, but it followeth not that Lawyers are civill judges to condemne a man to die; for the Prieſts ſaid, this man deſerveth to die in point of Law, not abſolutely, as this man, but upon ſuppoſition that he hath committed the fact, deſerveth to die, and their meaning is, any man whoſoever he be, though they never hear, nor ſee the man who hath committed ſuch a fact, ought to die. Now Gods Law never appointed any judge to condemn a man to die, whom the judge never did accuſe, heare, or ſee, this were extreame unjuſtice: Now this ſuppoſition is, and was to be proved and judged by the civill Iudge; and whereas Eraſtus ſaith, the judge draweth the ſword with his owne hand againſt no man; 1. It is not to purpoſe, for the hangman is in Law the hand and inſtrument of the judge, but he is neither hand nor inſtrument of the Lawyer, of the Prieſts and Levites, who in matters criminall of life and death, judge of the Maior propoſition, and of the Law, except Eraſtus would have a Major propoſition to prove an Aſſumption, which were to ſhame all Logick: For the Prieſt never commanded p. 403this or this man, becauſe he had done this fault, to be ſtoned by ſuch & ſuch executioners. 2. It is doubtful whether the judge did never with his owne hand, caſt a ſtone at any ſtoned to death. Laſtly, there was no provocation from the great Sanedrim at Ieruſalem, true, in matter of Law, what then? Ergo, they were politick judges? it followeth as the like conſequences of Eraſtus doth follow. Yea, for the fact and the judiciall condemning of the man, they were neither the higheſt judicature, nor any judicature at all, the civill Iudges of the high Sanedrim did that onelyonly. It is true, he was to die who would not ſtand to the ſentence of the judge or Prieſt in the matter of Law, the man being judged to be guilty of the fact by the civill judge, but this ſhall never prove that the Prieſts were civill judges.

Erastus. The late Iewes referre to this Sanedrim at IeruſalemPage 269. queſtions of making warre, or conſecrating the Prieſt, of tributes, of charges of the Temple, of judging of Tribes, of the cenſuring of falſe Prophets, and of Soothſayers, &c. How then is it not a politick judicature in which all cauſes belonging to worſhip, Ceremonies, civill policy, bloods, and capitall puniſhments were handled? for when Moſes had ſpoken of the puniſhing of Idolaters, he preſently addeth Deut. 17. If any thing be hard for thee, &c

Anſ. It is like enough, the Iewes referred ſuch as theſe to the Sanedrim, but we contend for two Sanedrims, one civill, and another of Prieſts, Levites and Elders, who judged of matters onelyonly of Eccleſiaſticall cognizance, and of bloods, and puniſhing Idolaters and falſe Prophets with death, onelyonly in a ſpirituall way, in point of Law; and I judge the holy Ghoſt Deut. 17. hath ſo framed the words that it is evident, as I have proved that capitall crimes belonged to them in point of Law; for he ſaith not, he that refuſeth to die when the Prieſts and Levites condemne him to die, hee ſhall ſurely die, and have the benefit of appeal to no higher judicature, Now this he ſhould have ſaid by Erastus his way; but he that will not ſtand to the ſentence of the Prieſt or judge ſhall die. Hence it is clear, he ſpeaketh of things in matters of Law, in which the guilty might diſ-aſſent, and alledge the Prieſts had not judged according to Law. But how was it the minde of the holy Ghoſt that any could refuſe the Sentence of death given out by the Prieſts? for the meaning muſt be by Eraſtus his way, he that refuſeth p. 404to die, when the Prieſt condemneth him to die, he ſhall ſurely die. 2. He ſaith not that the Prieſts and Levites ſhall give out ſentences of death and blood againſt any man, but they ſhall ſhew and teach thee when thou ſhalt inquire, the ſentences of judgement, even of Idolaters, blaſphemers, of Murthers, and blood, according to the Law of God, the knowledge of which the Prieſts lips ſhould preſerve.

Eraſtus. Moſes inſtituted no other publike judicatures for puniſhingPage 270. of wickednes, but thoſe he maketh mention of Exod. 18. Numb. 11. Deut. 1. 16, 17. But all th…ſe were onelyonly civill, not Eccleſiaſticall Iudges. The ſeventy that were indued with the ſpirit of prophecy were given to helpe Moſes and …aſe him, not to be aſſiſtants to helpe Aaron, and it cannot be doubted but Moſes his government was civill.

Anſ. Both the Major & the Minor is falſe, the Major is from ſome particular places, negativè, he ſhould argue from all the Old Teſtament, and he argueth from ſome places onelyonly, he leaveth out Levit. 10. and all the places where the Prieſts were onelyonly to judge the Leper, the uncleane, which are ſpirituall judicatures, not civill. 2. The Aſſumption is falſe; Deut. 17, ſaith the contrary. 3. Though we could not ſhew a place for the formall inſtitution of an Ordinance, yet if we ſhow the thing inſtituted, it is ſufficient. 4. Eraſtus much doubteth himſelfe, if Moſes his government was altogether civill, eſpecially before the Lord ſeparated Aaron his ſons and the Tribe of Levi to teach and governe the people in an Eccleſiaſticall way, for Eraſtus ſaid before that Moſes preſcribed Lawes to Aaron, ſacrificed and did that which was proper to the Prieſts, though after that God forbad the Kings to uſurpe the Prieſts office, and puniſhed Saul and Vzziah for ſo doing, (though I never read that Saul uſurped the Prieſts office, you may take it upon the word of Eraſtus) and we all know that Moſes was a Prophet of God, Deut. 18. 18. I will raiſe them up a Prophet from amongſt their brethren like unto thee, Deut. 34. 10. And there aroſe not a Prophet in Iſrael ſince, like unto Moſes, whom the Lord knew face to face, Heb. 3. 5. Moſes verily was faithfull in all his houſe as a ſervant: Now thoſe that will ſay Moſes his government of the Church was all civill and politicall, as a civill judge and King, and that he acted not in the governement of the Church, as in writing and delivering Laws, and in doing many things, yea in p. 405commanding the will of God, as a Prophet to Aaron, to his ſons, and the whole tribe of Levi, to me ſpeakes non-ſenſe.

Erastus. That judicature to the which the inferiours appealed, as toPage 270. 271. the ſupreame, is politick.

Anſ. It is denied, they appealed to it, as the ſupreme Eccleſiaſtick in point of Law and Conſcience: Ergo, It was not politique, all the reſt are anſwered before, yea, Iehoſhaphat 2 Chron. 19. putteth this as a thing peculiar to the Prieſts, v. 12. What cauſe ſoever ſhall come before you of your brethren,—between blood and blood, between Law and Commandement, Statutes and Judgements, ye ſhall even warne them that they treſpaſſe not againſt the Lord; that is, as Eraſtus yeeldeth, ye ſhall teach them what is juſt and agreeable to, and what is unjuſt and repugnant to the Law of God. Civill judges lips were not to preſerve knowledge, as the lips of the Prieſts, Mal. 2. 7. and Deut. 17. 11. According to the ſentence of the Law that they ſhall teach thee, and according to the judgement that they ſhall tell, thou ſhalt doe. Hence it is clear that this judicature in civill things was a teaching, a telling, a declaring and reſolving judicature, and that in blood they reſolved of cauſes of blood, of ſtroakes, but judged not perſons, nor bloody men, nor violent perſons.

Eraſtus. Moſes and Iehoſhaphat ſpeake of one and the ſame judicature.Page 272. Moſes doth not give teaching and commanding diviſibly to ſome, but joyntly to all the Synedrie. Though the Prieſts were more skilled in the Law, for Moſes commandeth to teach the ſenſe of the Law by judgeing, as he ſaith himſelfe, Exod. 18. 16. I judge between one and another, and I doe make them know the ſtatutes of God and his lawes; Moſes putteth them all joyntly together, they ſhall tell thee, thou ſhalt doe what they ſhevv thee, according to the Lavv that they ſhall teach thee ſhalt thou doe, not declining to the right-hand, or to the left-hand.

Anſ. 1. That Iehoſhaphat ſpeaketh of the ſame judicature that Moſes ſpeaketh of, is clear, 2 Chron. 19. 8, 9. 10. The very words of Moſes Deut. 17. 8. are the ſame, both the ſame judges, and the ſame cauſes, compared with v. 5, 6, 7. But Iehoſhaphat maketh two judicatures, as I have proved, and Iehoſhaphat reformed according to Moſes his Lavv, as Eraſtus granteth. 2. I cannot be induced to beleeve that the judges here teached by judging, it is ſpoken contrary p. 406to Theology: The end of teaching is to informe the conſcience,Teaching and judgeing not one. and Teachers as Teachers watch for the ſoule; and the end of civill and politick judging, is a quiet and peaceable life, 1 Tim. 2. 2. the vveapons of teachers are not carnall, but ſpirituall, 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5. the weapons of civill Iudges are carnall, for the civill Iudge beareth not the ſvvord in vaine, Rom. 13. 4. then theſe ſame civill judges did not both teach and judge at once, they taught not as civill judges, but as Prieſts; they judged not as Prieſts, but as civill Iudges; and therefore there is no ground to ſay that Moſes aſcribeth theſe ſame acts to civill judges, and Prieſts and Levites, as if they made one Synedry; for in both Texts not one word of teaching, which is proper to the Prieſts, Mal. 2. 7. Ier. 2. 8. Hoſ. 4. 6. is aſcribed to the civill Iudge; and not one word of judging and condemning to death, which is proper to the civill Iudge, Num. 35. 24. Deut. 22. 18, 19, Deut. 17. 2. 3, 4, &c. and 21. 19, 20. 1 King. 21. 11. 2 Sam. 14. 15. 1 Kings 2. 28, &c. Rom. 13. 4. Luke 12. 13. 14. &c. is aſcribed to the Prieſts and Levites; but the Prieſt or the judge are ſet downe by way of disjunction, Deut. 17. 12. which could not be if they made one and the ſame judicature, and therefore Iehoſhaphat 2 Chron. 19. clearely diſtinguiſheth them in two judicatures, one v. 5, 6, 7. Another v. 8, 9, 10. having two ſundry preſidents, and two ſundry objects to treat about, to wit, the matters of Iehovah, and the matters of the King. 3. The place cited Exod. 18. 16. confirmeth much our opinion, for Moſes as a Iudge ſaith, vvhen they have a matter, they come unto me, and I judge between one & another. This he ſpake as a civill Iudge; and when he ſaith, And I make them knovv the ſtatutes of God and his lavves: This he ſpake as a prophet, for Moſes was both a Iudge and a Prophet. Now if all civill Iudges be ſuch mixt perſons, as to teach the Stautes and Laws of God, they doe this either as civill judges, or as Prophets, then there was reaſon why Malachie ſhould have ſaid, the civill judges lips ſhould preſerve knowledge, and they ſhould ſeeke the Law at his The civill Iudge as a Iudge cannot teach.mouth; for if a civill judge, as a Iudge teach the people, and watch for their ſouls, what marvell then he beare the ſword to preſerve their bodies, as a Prophet, and not as a Iudge; and if he beare the ſword as a Prophet and Teacher, all Teachers muſt beare the ſword: which is againſt reaſon and Scripture, and what reaſon is there, if Moſes teach as a civill judge, but he may as properly be p. 407obliged in conſcience to teach, and ſo he ſhould ſin if he imploy not his talent that way, as he is obliged to exerciſe the ſword as a judge? and by the contrary, a Prophet as a Prophet ſhould be obliged in conſcience, as kindly and per ſe, to exerciſe the Sword as to preach the Goſpel, for nothing agreeth more kindly to the ſubiect, then that which agreeth to it foreign under that reduplication, as it is ſuch; Now this is againſt ſenſe and reaſon, and confoundeth all callings on earth: but if Eraſtus grant that Moſes judgeth as a civill judge, and teacheth the people the Law of God as a prophet, then to make this Sanedrim a mixt company both to judge civilly, and to teach as ſpirituall men by office, muſt all the Prieſts and Levites in this Sanedrim be both Prieſts and Levites, and alſo civill Iudges? And all the civill Iudges muſt be both civill judges, and alſo Prieſts and Levites, which is expreſly againſt the Text, that ſpeakes Deut. 17. of the Prieſt, or the Iudge, as two diſtinct offices, and ſo God muſt have choſen the Iudge no leſſe, then the Prieſt to minister before him. So, it is falſe, that teaching and judging are copulatively aſcribed to theſe ſame perſons, and to the ſame judicature, as Eraſtus ſaith.

Erastus. He ſaith Deut. 17. he ſhall die who ſtandeth not to the ſentencePage 272. of the Prieſt or judge, by way of disjunction, in regard of divers times, for the Princes or Iudges were not alwayes the ſame, for often onelyonly the Prieſts governed, and for the ſame reaſon he ſaith not, Deut. 17. aſcend to Ieruſalem, but to the place which the Lord thy God ſhall chuſe, for the Arke was not alwayes in one place, or city; So Deut. 19. when he ſpeaketh of the falſe witneſſe, he ſaith, and they ſhall ſtand before the Lord, that is, before the Prieſts and Iudges that ſhall be at that time. Who vvould thinke that there are here diſtinct and divers Iudicatures?

Anſ. It is a conjecture of Eraſtus, that Moſes ſpeaketh Deut. 17. of the Prieſt or the Iudge by way of disjunction, becauſe of divers times, not of divers and diſtinct Tribunals, for all Moſes his time, and Ioſhua's time, and for the moſt part, there were both Iudges and Prieſts, and we had rather beleeve the Spirit of God then Eraſtus, for 2 Chron. 19. under Iehoſhaphat at one and the ſame time, there were both civill Iudges, and Prieſts and Levites, and theſe two Judicatures had two different ſorts of cauſes, and two different Preſidents; if then at one and the ſame time the man was to be put p. 408to death, who did not ſtand to the ſentence of the Prieſt, though he ſhould ſtand to the ſentence of the civill judge; and ſo if hee was to be put to death, who ſhould ſtand to the ſentence of the Prieſts, and give an outſide of obedience to the Ceremoniall Law, if he ſhould not ſtand to the ſentence of the civill Judge, then were there at the ſame time theſe two ſentences in theſe two judicatures: but the former is true by the expreſſe Law of God; Ergo, ſo is the latter: when God ſaith, Goe up to the place that the Lord ſhall chuſe, he meaneth Ieruſalem, and one determinate place at once, and if Moſes had ſaid, Goe up to the place that the Lord ſhall chuſe; or to ſome other place that the Lord ſhall not chuſe, then could I inferre well, that at one and the ſame time, they might have gone to either places, or to both places, having two ſorts of cauſes, as there be ever two ſorts of cauſes in the Church, ſome Civill, ſome Eccleſiaſticall. 3. Eraſtus ſhould have ſhewen a time when onelyonly the Prieſt as the Prieſt did governe, and there neither was a civill Iudge, nor was that Prieſt who governed the civill judge: If Eraſtus ſhew not this, he ſheweth nothing for his owne cauſe, which is to make one confuſed Judicature of civill and Eccleſiaſticall Iudges and cauſes, which the Scripture doth carefully diſtinguiſh. 4. In the place Deut. 19. nothing is ſaid againſt us, but that onelyonly the civill Iudge put to death the falſe Witneſſe; which is much for us, that though the falſe witneſſe was to ſtand before the Prieſts, and incurre an Eccleſiaſtick cenſure, yet the Prieſt as Prieſt had no hand in putting him to death.

Erastus. Sometime the Prieſt vvas preſident in this Sanedrim,Page 272. 273. as Eli and Samuel, vvithout a judge; therefore vvhen it is ſaid, the chiefe Prieſt vvas …ver them in all the matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah in the Kings matters, they made not tvvo different Iudicatures; and the high Prieſt and Zebadiah vvere both over the ſame Iudicature. Ioſephus excellently verſed in the Ievviſh lavvs, ſaith, antiq. lib. 9. c. 1. they vvere foreign fellovves or companions; then they vvere not in divers Senats. The Levites vvere equally ſervants to both, though it may be the Prieſts were more diligently to goe about the canſes of God, and the Iudges the cauſes of the King.

Anſ. Were Eli and Samuel preſidents in the Sanedrim without a Iudge? that is as much as to ſay, Eli and Samuel, who undoubtedly by the Teſtimony of the Spirit of God were civill Iudges p. 409of Iſrael, 1 Sam. 4 18. and 7. 15. and 8. 1. 7. were Judges without Iudges: I conceive Eli was both a Prieſt and a Judge; and Samuel both a Prophet and a Iudge; whether Samuel was a Prieſt or not, let Eraſtus determine. Samuel was of the Tribe of Ephraim, Eraſtus maketh the Magiſtrate and the Prieſt or Paſtor formally one.not a Prieſt, though he ſacrificed by an extraordinary Priviledge; nor was Moſes a Prieſt. 2. I ſee no reaſon to ſay, Eli was a Prieſt without a Iudge, more then to ſay he was a Iudge without a Prieſt, for he was both. But this may ſhew the Reader, that Eraſtus alwayes confoundeth the office of the Prieſt, and the Civill judge, ſo as he maketh them not only ſubjectively one, which God himſelf did in the perſon of Eli, but alſo one formally; for as I ſhew before Eraſtus muſt ſay, Eli ſacrificed as a Iudge, and he condemnedClar. Vir. Antonius Wale…s, Tom. 2. pag. 27. Wtenbogardus. Auraonem ſubijci Moſi. Magiſtratus eſſe inſtauratores, & directores cultus Dci, ſecundum verebum Dci, ſc… Doctores eſſe tantum religion is Miniſtros, & Magiſtratum populum docere per … cl…ſ… Miniſtrum; Miniſtros autem hec facere à et ſub Magiſtrate. ill doers to die & exerciſed the ſword as a Prieſt; & Samuel propheſied as a Magiſtrate, & Samuel did judge Iſrael as a Prophet; for the Magiſtrate as the Magiſtrate to Eraſtus, doth both the part of a Iudge, of a Prieſt and Prophet of old, and now of a Paſtor and Teacher. 3. It is enough to us that Amariah and Zebadiah were over diverſe cauſes, in divers Courts, and differenced, 2 Chro. 19. in that the one was, for the kings matters, the other for Gods matters. Eraſt. ſaith right down, they were both for theſe ſame matters. But the one was to care more for the Kings matters, the other more for Gods matters: ſo Eraſtus is forced to make a difference: But he maketh it in the comparative degree, and the spirit of God maketh the difference in the poſitive degree: But 1. Eraſtus ſaith without the Text, Amariah was to care for the matters of the King, but more for the matters of God: The Text ſaith no ſuch thing, but the contrary: he ſaith, Zebadiah the Civill Magiſtrate was to care for the matters of God, but more for the matters of the King: 4. This is againſt Eraſtus his his way; which is that the Magiſtrate hath a ſupreame principall and only care of Church-Government, and the Prieſts and Levites, and Paſtors and Teachers only, as the ſervants of the Magiſtrates, A & ſub Magiſtratibus, as Vtenbogard ſpeaketh, from and under the Magiſtrate, as the Vicars, Deputies, and Ambaſſadors of the Magiſtrate; yea, that Magiſtrates teach the people by the Paſtors, as by their Vicars, then Zebadiah ſhould more diligently care for the matters of God, then Amariah as the Lord and Maſter ſhould more care his own buſineſſe, then his ſervant ſhould do: 3. More or leſſe doth not vary the nature of things; then muſt p. 410the Magiſtrate Sacrifice, Teach, judge between the clean and the unclean, miniſter before the Lord as the ſons of Aaron, and the ſons of Levi, but leſſe diligently. But what calling hath he to any of theſe Acts at all? Hath the Lord choſen the Tribe of Iudah, or the Tribe of Levi to miniſter before him? And by the ſame reaſon, the Prieſts, Levites ſhould do theſe ſame things, but more diligently. And again Amariah is to uſe the ſword, and to condemne ill doers to death: But leſſe diligently, theſe be pleaſant dreams. 5. The Prieſt and Judges are companions, as Moſes and Aaron: Ergo, the one is not Maſter and the other ſervant and Deputy, … Eraſtus dreameth, and they are the rather of that in divers Senats. 6. But how proveth Eraſtus, That the Levites were common Servants both to Prieſts and Judges? For though it were ſo, this will never ſubject the Prieſts to the Civill Iudge, nor confound theſe two Iudicatures: David 1 Chron. 26. divided the Levites, and ſet them in their courſes for ſervice; Ergo, They were King Davids ſervants as King, it followeth not, except Eraſtus prove David did not this as a Prophet, and that the Lord did not chooſe the Tribe of Levi. But David did it as a King, and ſo all Magiſtrates may appoint offices in the Houſe of God, and call men to the Miniſtry, by vertue of the Magiſtrates place: But David, 1 Chro. 24. diſtributed the Prieſts as well as the Levites; Ergo, the Prieſts are ſervants to the King, as well as the Levites. But the Levites are expreſly, 1. Chron. 26. given by office, to wait on the ſons of Aaron, for the ſervice of the houſe of the Lord, for the purifying the holy things, for the ſhew bread, for the fine flour for meat offerings, and for the unleavened Cakes, and that which is baked in the pan, and for that which is fryed, and for all manner of meaſures and ſize, to praiſe the Lord at morning and night; to offer all burnt ſacrifices to the Lord, &c. In all which no man can ſay, they were ſervants to the King: For then the King ſacrificed by them, as by his ſervants; no Divinity is more contrary to Scripture.

It is true, 1 Chron. 26. 30. ſome of the Hebronites were Officers in all the buſineſſe of the Lord, and the ſervice of the King. But that is becauſe, ver. 26. they had the overſight of the ſpoile, that the King dedicated to the houſe of the Lord, for the building of the Temple, and that is called the Kings buſineſſe.

Erastus. Jehoſhaphat, 2 Chron. 19. did not depart from MoſesPage 274. p. 411his Law: But we read not, that there were two diſtinct Iuriſdictions commanded and inſtituted by God.

Anſ. If this be a good Argument; all that David and Solomon did for, and in the building of the Temple in the ſtructure, forme, length, breadth, Cedars, gold, Altars, &c. of the Temple ſhall be without Warrant; Solomon and David departed not from Moſes: But Moſes ſpake nothing of the Temple, and a thouſand things of Divine inſtitution in the Temple.

But this is our Argument, Jehoſhaphat did erect no new Iudicatures, but reſtore thoſe that had their Warrant from Moſes his Law. But ſo it is that Iehoſhaphat reinſtituteth two diſtinct Iudicatures; Ergo, The Lord by Moſes at the beginning did inſtitute theſe two diſtinct Iudicatures.

Erastus. We are not anxiouſly to inquire what be the matters ofPag. 274. What are the matters of the Lord and of the King, 2 Chron. 19.2 Chr 19 God; it is all one with what he ſaid before; ye judge not for men, but for the Lord. The Rabbines, the judgement of Capitall cauſes is the judgement of ſouls, the ſcripture nameth all judgements moſt frequently, the judgements of the Lord, Deut. 1. Ye ſhall not fear men; for the judgement is the Lords, Exod. 18. The people come to me to inquire of God, that is, to ſeek judgement: Therefore are the Judges, Exod. 22. Pſal. 82. called Gods, The matter of God, is any cauſe expreſſed in the Law of God, and propoſed to the Judges to be judged; and the Kings matter, is that which properly belongeth to the King.

Anſ. Eraſtus his anxiety to inquire is little, becauſe he cannot Anſwer: 1. The matter of the Lord cannot be all one with this, Ye judge not for men, but for the Lord: For the matter of the King, or a point of Treaſon to be judged, is to be judged not for men, but for the Lord. But the Text differenceth between the matters of Lord, and the matters of the King. 2. In the former, 2 Chron. 19. 5. he ſpeaketh of civill buſineſſe; but the matters of the Lord are ſuch as concern the Law of God, and the true ſenſe and meaning thereof to be propoſed to the conſcience; and 3. That is a common thing to all cauſes, that in the manner of Iudging, Iudges are to look that they do as men in the place of God, ſo then as God, if he were judging, would do no iniquity, nor reſpect perſons, nor take gifts, as he ſaith, ver. 7. So neither ſhould men do iniquity, or reſpect perſons in judgement; and ſo is it taken, p. 412Deut. 1. 17. Now this clearly is the manner of righteous judgement, and Modus judicandi, but the matter of Iehovah is Res judicata; the thing to be judged, which may be unjuſtly Iudged: and this matter of Iehovah is not common to all cauſes, but is contradiſtinguiſhed in the Text, from the matters of the King, which in the manner of judging is no leſſe to be judged according to the judgement of the Lord, then the matters of Jehovah.

4. The Chalde Paraphraſt, Vt inquir at inſtructionem, Vatab. Vt conſulat deum. This is a falſe interpretation, That to inquire of God, is to ſeek judgement from God: For it is to ask the Lords minde in doubtſome caſes; and this they asked from Moſes, as he was a Prophet, not as he was a civill Iudge: except Eraſtus will have the Magiſtrate of old to give reſponſes, and to have been Oracles by vertue of their Office: which is a clear untruth, Saul, David, Solomon, Joſhua, though Kings, did not give reſponſals, and anſwers when they did go to War, or were in doubtſome perplexities. But did ask Counſell at the Prieſt and Oracle of God and the Ark, 1 Sam. 15. 37. Ioſh. 9. 14. Iudg. 20. 27. 1 Sam. 30. 8. and 23. 2. 4. And by this the Magiſtrate as the Magiſtrate ſhould reſolve all doubts of conſcience now to perplexed conſciences, under the New-Teſtament. 5. The Iudges are called Gods, becauſe they are under-Deputies in the room and place of the great God, not becauſe every judgement of theirs is the judgement, and very ſentence of God, and according to that the cauſe they judge is nothing but the cauſe of God, for they are to judge the Kings matters, no leſſe then Gods matters. 6. For what end Eraſtus ſpeaketh of the Rabbines here I know not, I think he knoweth not himſelf; the man was ignorant of them, and innocent of their language.

Erastus. I am not againſt, that the things of God be things belongingPag. 274, 375. to the Worſhip of God, and the matters of the Kings Civill buſineſſe. The Prieſt muſt eſpecially take care, that there be no error in Faith and Ceremonies: and this belongeth alſo to the King, as is clear, Deut. 17. So Zebadiah is not excluded from Gods matters: Nor Amariah from the Kings buſineſſe.

Anſ. This interpretation is fully refuted: Zebadiah is in the Text, excluded from judging Eccleſiaſtically, in the matters of God, as a Prieſt, Levite or Elder. For if he muſt judge ſo, he muſt either p. 413judge as a Prieſt or Levite, which he was not, or as a Civill Iudge; if as a Civill Iudge, then is he no leſſe over the people in the matters of God, then in the Kings matters: Now the Text could not exclude him from theſe things which belongeth to his office, and put him in another Sphere, in the buſineſſe of the King, and put ſuch a wide difference between the object of the two men, as the Kings matters, and the matters of the King of Kings. The like I ſay of Amariah. 2. The King Deut. 17. as King, is to Iudge according to the Book of the Law, that he may be a godly King, and fear God, and keep the words of the Law; Ergo, he is to teach the people no leſſe then the Prieſt, and to judge between the clean and unclean, and that as King: This no way followeth.

Erastus. If you pleaſe by the matters of God, to underſtand thePage 275. cauſes of appeals, and by the Kings matters, other judgements, I contend not: And becauſe the Prieſt was better accuſtomed with the Law of God, then others, therefore the High Prieſt was ſet over theſe, yet ſo, as Zebadiah was over the Kings buſineſſe: But I think the two firſt, eſpecially the firſt, the beſt Expoſition: But 1 Chron. 26. Theſe ſame perſons are ſet over both the Kings and the Lords matters.

Anſ. Conſider how dubious Eraſtus is in his three Expoſitions to elude the force of the place. If it was the Magiſtrates place, virtute officii, by vertue of his office to command the Prieſts, and to direct them (as Eraſtus and Ʋtenbogard ſay) in the internall and ſpecifick acts of Sacrificing, Iudging between the clean and the unclean, teaching the people: then the King and the Civill Iudge were by office, to be more skilled in the Cauſes of God, then the Prieſts, becauſe the Commander and the directer, who may by his office exerciſe thoſe ſame acts that he commandeth his ſervants; yea, and is by office, to command him to do thus, in theſe internall Acts, and not thus, he ought, by his office, to be more skilled in theſe then the ſervant. I grant, the King Commandeth the Painter, all the morall equity requiſite in Painting, that he endamage not the Common-wealth by proſuſe laviſhing of Gold; and in this, it is preſumed, there is more Iuſtice and morall equity by office in the King Commanding, then in the Painter Commanded: But if the King ſhould take on him to Command, virtute officii, that the Painter regulateth his actions of art, thus and thus, and direct and Command by his Royall office, as King, that the Painter p. 414draw the face of the Image with more pale and white, and leſſe red and incarnate colour; in ſuch a proportion according to art, and not in ſuch a proportion: Then by office the King as King, might paint Pourtraict… himſelf; and behoved by office to be more skilled in Painting then the Painter. Now Eraſtus preſuppoſeth, Whatever the Prieſts do as Prieſts, in an Eccleſiaſticall way, (he excepteth Sacrificing and burning incenſe, but for a time) that the King as King may do the ſame alſo; ſo the King as King may teach, give reſponſes in matters of God, and now under the new Teſtament, Preach and diſpenſe the Sacraments, and judge as King, whether Prieſts and Paſtors do right or no; and that not only in order to Civill, but alſo to Eccleſiaſticall puniſhments, as deprivation from their offices, and debarring from the Sacraments; Hence it muſt follow, that Zebediah ſhould, by office, be better skilled in the matters of God then Amariah, or any Prieſt; and by office he ſhould rather be over the matters of God, then any Prieſt in the world. 2. Now its clear that theſe ſame things, to be over men in the matter of God, and in the matters of the King, 1 Chron. 26. proveth nothing, except they be over theſe ſame matters, by one and the ſame power of the Sword, as Eraſtus ſaith; Amariah the High Prieſt, and Zebediah the Civill Iudge, promiſcuouſly were both of them, without excluſion of either, over the people in the matters of the Lord, and in the matters of the King; and in the ſame judicature, & by the ſame coactive power of the ſword, as Eraſtus ſaith, Prieſts and Civill Iudges were in the ſame judicature, by the ſame Civill power, Iudges to give out joyntly, in a judiciall way, the ſentence of a bloody death, and to inflict a bloody death by the ſame power. 3. It is Eraſtus his ignorance of the Originall Text, to ſay theſe ſame words that are 2 Chron. 19. 11. are alſo, 1 Chron, 26. ver. 30, 32. for 2 Chron. 19. 11. it is ſaid, Amariah is over you in all the matters of the Lord: Hence the matters of the Lord, were the formall object of his judging: But 1 Chron. 26. 30. the Hebronites were officers in the buſineſſe of the Lord, or, to the buſineſſe of the Lord, and foreign Levites ſometime imployed in Civill buſineſſe.to the ſervice of the King. Levites might have been imployed in both Eccleſiaſticall and Civill buſineſſe in the Temple, and in the overſeeing of thoſe ſpoiles, that David in Wars had taken from the Enemies, and Dedicated for building the Houſe of the Lord, which are called the Kings buſineſſe; and the conſtruction, ver. 32. is varied, p. 415where it is ſaid, The Hebronites mighty men of valour, and ſo fit for war, were made by King David, Rulers over the Reu…eni…es, Gadites, and the half Tribe of Manaſſeh for every matter; not in every matter pertaining to God: The affixum foreign is here, and the affaires of the King. Theſe Levites ſeem to be imployed in the war, and are called valiant men, which muſt be ſome extraordinary caſe: But otherwiſe, when God commanded to number the Children of Iſrael for War, Numb. 1. 3. 45. The Levites were not numbred, God did forbid Moſes to number them, becauſe they were appointed for another ſervice, ver. 48, 49, 50. Yet it ſeemeth in Davids time, when there were ex…raordinary warres, that they were not exempted from the warres, for 1 Chron. 21. David commanded to number all Iſrael from Dan to Beerſheb…, and v. 6. Levi and Benjamin Ioab counted not, for the Kings word was abominable to Ioab; Whence to me it would ſeem, that in ſome caſes they were counted for warre, ſo 2 Chron, 23. 7. The Levites ſhall compaſſe the King, every man with his weapons in his hands, and Iehoiada the High Prieſt was their leader, to eſtabliſh Ioaſh in his Throne; but the caſe was not ordinary. Otherwiſe the Levites were ſeparated from warre and civill judicatures to the ſervice of the Sanctuary, Numb. 1. 47, 50. and 2. 33. and 3. 9. 12. and 3. 41, 45. and 8. 6. and 9. 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19. and 18. 23. Deut. 31. 25. Ioſh. 14▪ 3. 4. and 18. 7. 1 Chron. 15. 15. 2 Chron. 8. 14. and 20 19. and 29. 5, 16, 25, 26. Ezra 3. 9, 10. c. 6. 18. c. 8. 29. Ne…. 8. 7, 9. and 9. 4. Ezek. 44. 10. All which places muſt be anſwered by Eraſtus.