The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII.
Queſt. 13.
Whether Eraſtus can make good that the Synedry was the Civill Magiſtrate?
Erastus. When the Prieſt accuſed Jeremiah, Chap. 26. of blaſphemy,Eraſtus l. 4. cap. 4. pag. 275, 276. he ſate not amongſt the Judges, but ſtood as an accuſer before the Magistrate: So Beza. Eraſtus replieth, Your Synedry had no Civill juriſdiction, becauſe it is a dream: 2. Should Paſhut the Prieſt be both accuſer and judge? 3. In Ieremiahs time, there wasDe Presb. p. 106. a Monarch, in whoſe hand was all power; in Chriſts time there was an Ariſtocracy, the Government being in the hands of ſome choſen men.
Anſ. Certainly, Ier. 26. 10. the Princes ſate down in judgement, but that the Prieſts ſate with them, we have not one word, only the Prieſts accuſed him as worthy to die in the queſtion of Law, and ſo the people, ver. 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Iudges. 2. Nor do we ſay, the Prieſts were both judges The Prieſts in matters of death, judged only De queſtione iuris, of the queſtion of Law.Civill to condemn Ieremiah to die, and accuſers: that doth not hinder, but they in an Eccleſiaſticall way were Iudges, touching the queſtion of Law, whether he had ſpoken blaſphemy or not, and alſo Accuſers before the Civill Iudges. 3. It is to beg the queſtion to ſay, that all power even of Church-cenſuring was in the hand of the King. 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp, the Prieſts only could by the Law of God do this, and excluded Ʋzziah the King, as a Leper out of the Congregation: The King could not judge who were clean, who unclean. 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings, as if the Kings of I…dah were by Gods Law abſolute, can never be proved, but the contrary is evident, Deut. 17. And that inferiour Iudges were eſſentially Iudges, and the Lords immediate Deputies, is clear by Scripture, Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5, 6, 7. Exod. 18. 21, &c. Numb. 11. …6, 17, 18. Pſal. 82. 6, 7. Rom. 13. 1, 2.
Erastus. You ask how Caiaphas, and the Pri…ſts had power againſtPag. 276, 277. Ieſus: I anſvver: 1. From God: 2. From the Kings of Perſia. 3. From the permiſſion of the Romans: They apprehended him, and bound him, which was a part of Civill power, nor was this ſome of the confuſion under the Maccabees: Hovv can this be proved? Chriſt never rebuked it, nor his Apoſtles; the contrary is clear in Ioſephus.
Anſ. A permiſſive power from God, can prove no Law-power. 2. Perſians and Romans could not give to Prieſts and Levites the power of the ſword, to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing, they were not ſo much as numbred for the war, but ſet apart for the ſervice of Gods houſe, Num. 1. 3. 45, &c. they might in ſome extraordinary caſes judge in civill buſineſſe with the Civill Iudges in the ſame Iudicature, but this was no ſtanding Law, 2. Eraſtus ſeeketh we would prove that the practiſe of bloody Phariſees was not againſt Law: He knoweth, it is his own Argument, Affirmanti incumbit Probatio. 3. Chriſt and the Apoſtles rebuked not particularly many other ſins. Pilate might have accuſed them for binding one of Ceſars Subjects, of whom he had ſaid, he found no fault in him. 4. That Ioſeph was a Priest, or a Levite, I reade not, he was an Honourable Councellor, ſome think of Pilates Councell. 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Ieſus, or that Ioſeph had any hand in either condemning, or doing any thing in the Sanedrim, but ſhewing his judgement, as a Iudge in the queſtion of Law, what was blaſphemy, we muſt deny, let Eraſtus prove it, if ſo be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite? Ioh. 18. 31. The Iews expreſly deny the power that Erastus giveth them: Pilate therefore ſaid unto them, take him and judge him according to your Law, which was a ſalt mocking of them. I knovv, if you had povver, you ſhould not have brought him to me; therefore if ye have povver, uſe it: The Ievvs therefore ſaid unto him, It is not lavvfull for us to put any man to death, and the Evangeliſt addeth, ver. 32. That the ſaying of Ieſus might be fulfilled, which he spake, ſignifying what death he ſhould die, that is, God had taken power of life and death from the Iews, in his admirable providence, that Ieſus might die a Roman death, due for treaſon, that is, that he might be crucified; Ergo, the Iews had no power to put him to death. It is weak and empty that Erastus ſaith, They had not povver to put him to death, for ſaying he vvas King, becauſe that was a civill crime: But they had power to put him to death, and to ſtone him for blasphemy; for the Iews ſay univerſally without diſtinction of cauſes, with two negations, which in the Greek Language is a ſtrong and univerſall negation, foreign, We have not power to kill any man, Ergo, the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him, becauſe the Iews might kill no man: you will ſay, Hovv had they povver vvith ſvvords and ſtaves to take the Kings free ſubject and binde him, which yet they The Prieſts and Levites had no Law-power by Gods Law or from Ceſar, to put Chriſt to death.did? I anſwer, it was an uſurped power, for by Eraſtus his doctrine, they had no more power to take him and binde him for Treaſon, which was a civill crime, then they had to kill him for Treaſon, both was alike unlawfull by the Roman Lavv, and Pilate being a man willing to pleaſe the people, as the event of the buſineſſe ſheweth, did not in a legall way challenge them for binding him; but he durſt not be anſwerable to his Prince Ceſar, if he had paſt by ſuch a high point, as their putting Chriſt to death: But we deſire any Law of God (for practiſes eſpecially of wicked men are no binding rule) that Prieſts or Levites, in the Old-Teſtament, might either binde a Iew or put him to death, and when Pilate did ſtand ſo much to put Chriſt to death, they would have uſed their own power, malice ſo neceſſitating them, if they had had any, and might well have ſaid to Pilate, It is lavvfull for us to put him to death for blaſphemy, but vve vvill not uſe our povver, vve ſo love to be loyall to Caeſar; but they ſay the contrary, We have no povver to put any man to death. They ſay indeed, that by their law he ought to die. But that they had no power to put him to death, for the Common people ſaid, that, as may appear, if we compare, Ioh. 19. ver. 5. with ver. 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. &c. and yet Eraſtus will not ſay that the common people were Members of the Sanedrim, or had power of life and death, as the Civill Magiſtrate had.
Eraſtus. Steven was ſtoned by the Sanedrim, not by tumult, forpag. 279. there vvere vvitneſſes, as the lavv required, Act. 7. The vvitneſſes (vvho by the lavv vvere to caſt the firſt stone at the man condemned) vvere here, therefore there vvas Lavv-povver to ſtone him, though they did it unjuſtly.
Anſ. Beza meant, that Steven was ſtoned by tumult, that is, without any Law-power, except uſurped, when the Iews were now riper for deſtruction, and had taken on them the blood of theThe Sanedrim had no Lawpower againſt Steven. Lord of glory, and ſo growing more daring and inſolent againſt the Roman povver, to their own juſt deſolation, that came on them under Veſpaſian. That they uſed witneſſes, will not prove they had Law to ſtone Steven, for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders, one brother hath no power of life and death over another, as Eraſtus will grant, yet with both there is uſe of witneſſes, 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly, any lawfull civill power, ſo all this is from a naked practiſe of thoſe that alvvayes reſiſted the holy Ghost: And the like I ſay ofThe like is true of Paul. Paul, who ſaith Act. 26. 10. of himſelf, Many of the Saints did I ſhut up in priſon, having received authority from the high Prieſts, foreign; ſuppoſe it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Prieſts to impriſon the Saints, and to murther the Saints, no high Prieſt can make over a Lawpower to another, which he hath not himſelf; now certain this Law-power of the Phariſees and High Priests by Gods Law, is the queſtion. Let us ſee Law or inſtitution, where the High Prieſts (for of theſe only the Text ſpeaketh) did impriſon and put to death, either blaſphemer or falſe Prophet, or, if by Moſes his Law, which muſt be a rule to all the High Prieſts in the time of perſecuting Saul, it was either Law or practiſe, that the High Prieſt had power to impriſon, or ſcourge, or put to death any man, and this was moſt proper to the King, and the Civill judge, and the Elders and Iudges in every City, 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15, 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. & 2. 6, 7. Iſa. 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1, &c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb. 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. & 7. 5. & 19. 12. 13. ver. 18, 19, 20, 21. & 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hoſ. 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King, the Civill Iudge, had power of all bodily puniſhments, as of ſcourging, death, ſtoning, ſtrangling, crucifying, hanging; But ſhew meany Veſtigium, or the leaſt conſequence where the Prieſts or High Prieſts had ſuch power, or did execute ſuch power in any one man: it is true, Deut. 17. the Prieſts might determine in Law what was blaſphemy, and ſo what deſerved the puniſhment of blaſphemy, which is death: But ſo the written Law of God, the very letter of it could in many caſes clearly reſolve the Civill judge, even though there had been no controverſie about the fact, whether it was condemned in the Law of God, or not: we know Samuel not being judge, but Saul being King & ſupream Magiſtrate, & not executing judgement on the Amalekites, he killed Agag, certainly, all Divines, even Popiſh not excepted, ſay, Saul the Civil Magiſtrate ought to have killed Agag, & that Samuel not by vertue of his place, as a prophet, or as a Prieſt or a Member of the Sanedrim (as Eraſtus would ſay) but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods ſpirit, killed him, as Phineas the ſon of Aaron ſlew, Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi, 7, 8. And Elijah ſlew Baals Prieſts, 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office, and Elias by office killed thoſe ill doers, as Eraſtus would dream, The Prophets and Prieſts by their office were Civill Iudges, and had power to put to death evil doers. Now Eraſtus denyeth, and with good reaſon, that the Lords diſciples ſhould bear civill dominion over men, as the Lords of the Gentiles, Luk. 22. 24, 25, 26. and that Chriſt though both a Prophet and a Prieſt could not take on him, to be a Iudge and a Ruler, Luk. 12. yet here Eraſtus will have the High Prieſt, by a Law-power, to impriſon and put to death. 2. Erastus may with as good reaſon ſay, that the high Prieſts had a Law-power by Gods inſtitution to puniſh and to compell Chriſtians to blaſpheme God, and to perſecute them to ſtrange Cities, and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Ieſus; for he went to Damaſcus for this effect, Act. 26. 12. foreign, with povver and Commiſſion from the chief Priests, This was not a Law-power in generall, to puniſh ſuch as the Law of Moſes diſcerned to be blaſphemers, but a limited particular Commiſſion to murther the Saints, who ſhould hear and obey the Prophet, like unto Moſes, whom the Lord ſhould raiſe up, Deut. 18. What Law had the High Prieſts for this? Had they not a Law on the contrary? Deut. 18.
Erastus. Paul confeſſeth ingenuouſly, before the RomanPag. 280. Judges, that he perſecuted the Saints, and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders ſo to do, Act. 22. & 26. and we read not that the Prieſts or Paul were cenſured for theſe things, as having done any thing againſt the Laws or will of the Romans, Act. 5. They ſend their Officer, the Captain of the Temple, they impriſon the Apostles, they convene a Councell, give out a ſentence, and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them, while Gamaliel impede them.
Anſ. It is true, the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exerciſed Civill juriſdiction, and inflicted bodily puniſhment. But for falſe Doctrine, the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters, and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords firſt inſtitution, Deut. 17. yea, they looked not much whether the Prieſts might put to death falſe Prophets, or if the Civill judges only might do it; and Eraſtus ſaid before, that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and cuſtomes in matters of Religion. 2. What care would the Romans take, whether the Iews killed and oppreſſed Iews, for queſtions of their owne Religion, ſo they remained loyall and true to Ceſar? 3. We know Herod, Felix, Feſtus, Agrippa, being willing to pleaſure the Iews, did overſee many breaches of Law in them, eſpecially in matters of the Goſpel, Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36, 37, 38, 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16, 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes? Becauſe they accuſe not the Sanedrim for this? ſurely it followeth not: We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifeſt breach of Law, when they ſcourged and caſt in priſon Paul and Silas, who were Romans and had not condemned them, Act. 16. 38, 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim, Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God, to ſcourge, and impriſon, and put to death the Apoſtles, is the queſtion; we ſay, they neither had Gods law, nor durſt be anſwerable to the Romans Laws, for that fact, and ſo this is a fact brought to prove a Law.
Erastus. If this was inſolencie in the Jevvs which roſe from the confuſionPag. 280. 281. of the two juriſdictions; hovv ſay ſome of yours, none can be excommunicated without the conſent of the Magiſtrate? Where did Christ divide the externall Government of the Church in Civill Government and Eccleſiaſticall, as you diſtinguiſh them?
Anſ. 1. That it is expedient, that the Christian Magiſtrate How the Chriſtian Magiſtrate is to be acquainted with excommunication.ſhould be acquainted with the Excommunication of any under his juriſdiction, that he may ſatisfie his own Conſcience in puniſhing him civilly, it is like ſome of our Divines do teach: But that the Magiſtrate have a negative voice in Excommunication, none of ours teach. 2. We make no ſuch diviſion as that of the Civill and the Eccleſiaſticall Government of the Church. Eraſtus may dream of ſuch a diſtinction: We know, all Government of the Church, as the Church, to us is Eccleſiaſticall: There is a Government of men of the Church that is Civill; but we dreamed never of a Civill Government of the Church: All the Government of the Church, as the Church, though externall, is Spirituall, Heavenly, and ſubordinate to Jeſus Chriſt as Lord and King of his own houſe, as the Government of a houſe, a Kingdom, an Army, a City is ſubordinate to the Lord of the houſe, to the King, Generall Commander, and Lord Mayor, and it is no more a Civill Government ſubordinate to the Magiſtrate and his Sword, then Chriſts Kingdom viſible and externall, or inviſible and internall is of this world.
When therefore Eraſtus denyeth that there is any Church-Government, he meaneth there is no Spirituall Church Government in the hands of Presbyters; but becauſe we know no Government of the Church as the Church, but it is Spirituall, and the Government of the Church by the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, is a Civill Government of men as men, and that by the power of the Sword, and ſo it is no Church-Government at all; and therefore we juſtly ſay, that Eraſtus denyeth all Church-Government.
Erastus. When Paul ſaith, Act. 23. Thou ſitteſt to judge me accordingPage 281. to the Law, Doth he not acknowledge the High Prieſt to be his Judge? Paul denieth that he had done any thing contrary to the Law: And Tertullus ſaith, We would have judged him according to our Law, if Lyſias had not without Law violently taken him from us.
Anſ. Ananias was to judge him only in an Eccleſiaſticall way; and when Paul ſaw that they went beyond their line, to take his life, he appealed from their inferior judicature to Caeſar, who only had power of his life. 2. Lyſias had Law to vindicate an innocent man accuſed on his life, before a moſt uncompetent judicature. Tertullus knew the Iews had favour and connivence in many Lawleſſe Facts.