Part 1 — Chapter 3: The First Argument for Ruling Elders, Taken from the Jewish Church

Having shewed what ruling Elders are, it followeth to shew Scripture and Divine right for them. Our first Argument is taken from the government and policy of the Jewish Church thus: Whatever kind of office-bearers the Jewish Church had; not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, such ought the Christian Church to have also. But the Jewish Church, not as it was Jewish, but as it was a Church, had Elders of the people, who assisted in their Ecclesiastical government, and were members of their Ecclesiastical Consistories. Therefore such ought the Christian Church to have also. The proposition will no man call in question; for, quod competit alicui qua tali competit omni tali. That which agreeth to any Church as it is a Church, agreeth to every Church. I speake of the Church as it is a political body, and setled Ecclesiastical Republike. Let us see then to the Assumption. The Jewish Church, not as it was a Church, but as it was Jewish, had an high Priest, typisying our great high Priest Jesus Christ. As it was Jewish, it had Musicians to play upon Harpes, Psalteries, Cymbals, and other Musical Instruments in the Temple (1 Chronicles 25:1). Concerning which, hear Bellarmine's confession, de bon. oper. lib. 1. cap. 17. Iustinus says, that the use of instruments was granted to the Jewes for their imperfection: and that therefore such instruments have no place in the Church. We confesse indeed that the use of musical instruments agreeth not alike with the perfect, and with the imperfect, and that therefore they beganne but of late to be admitted in the Church. But as it was a Church, and not as Jewish, it had foure sorts of ordinary office-bearers, Priests, Levites, Doctors, and Elders, and we conformablie have Pastors, Deacons, Doctors, and Elders. To their Priests and Levits, Cyprian does rightly liken our Pastors and Deacons, for however sundry things were done by the Priests and Levites, which were typical and Jewish onely; yet may we well parallell our Pastors with their Priests, in respect of a perpetuall Ecclesiastical office common to both, namely the Teaching and governing of the people of God (Malachi 2:7; 2 Chronicles 19:8), and our Deacons with their Levits, in respect of the cure of Ecclesiastical goods, and of the work of the service of the house of God in the materialls and appurtenances thereof, a function likewise common to both (1 Chronicles 26:20 & 23:24-28). The Jewish Church had also Doctors and Schools, or Colledges for the preservation of true Divinity among them, and of tongues, arts, and sciences, necessary thereto (1 Chronicles 15:22, 27; 2 Kings 22:14; 1 Samuel 19:20; 2 Kings 2:3, 5; Acts 19:9). These office-bearers they had for no typical use, but we have them for the same use and end for which they had them. And all these sorts of office-bearers among us we doe as rightly warrant from the like sorts among them as other whiles we warrant our baptizing of Infants from their circumcising of them, our Churches by their Synagogues, &c.

Now that the Jewish Church had also such Elders as we plead for, it is manifest: for besides the Elders of the Priests, there were also Elders of the people joined with them in the hearing and handling of ecclesiastical matters (Jeremiah 19:1). Take of the ancients of the people and of the ancients of the Priests. The Lord sending a message by the Prophet, would have a representative body of all Judah to be gathered together for receiving it, as Tremellius notes. So (2 Kings 6:32) Elisha sat in his house, and the Elders sat with him. We read (2 Chronicles 19:8) that with the Priests were joined some of the chief of the fathers of Israel, to judge ecclesiastical causes and controversies. And however many things among the Jews in the latter times, after the captivity, did wear to confusion and misorder, yet we find even in the days of Christ, and the Apostles, that the Elders of the people still sat and voiced in council with the Priests, according to the ancient form, as is clear from sundry places of the New Testament (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 21:23; Matthew 26:57, 59; Matthew 27:1, 12; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:66; Acts 4:5). This is also acknowledged by the Roman Annalist Baronius, who confesses further, that as this was the form among the Jews, so by the Apostles was the same form observed in their times, and Seniors then admitted into councils. Saravia himself, who disputes so much against ruling Elders, acknowledges what has been said of the Elders of the Jews: Seniores quidem invenio in Consessu Sacerdotum veteris Synagogæ, qui Sacerdotes non erant. I find indeed (says he) Elders in the Assembly of the Priests of the old Synagogue, which were not Priests. Et quamvis paria eorum essent suffragia & authoritas in omnibus sufragiis sacerdotum, cum suffragiis Sacerdotum, &c. And although (says he) their suffrages and authority in all judgments were equal with the suffrages of the Priests, &c. But what then, think you, he has to say against us? He says, that the Elders of the Jews were their Magistrates, which in things pertaining to the external government of the Church, ought not to have been debarred from the council of the Priests, more than the Christian Magistrate ought now to be debarred from the Synods of the Church. Now to prove that their Elders were their civil Magistrates, he has no better argument than this, that the Hebrew word Zaken, which is turned Elder, imports a chief man, or a Ruler. We answer, first, this is a bold conjecture which he has neither warranted by divine nor by human testimonies. Secondly, Zaken does not ever signify a Ruler, or a man in authority, as we have showed before. Thirdly, let us grant Zaken to be a name of dignity, and to import a chief man; yet a chief man is not ever a Magistrate, nor a Ruler. It would only follow that they were of the chief of the fathers of Israel that were joined with the Priests in the Sanhedrin, and so it was (2 Chronicles 19:8). Non hercle de plebe hominum lecti sed nobilissimi omnes, says P. Cunaeus. They were, says Loc. Theol. to. 6. §. 28, Proceres tribuum qui allegabantur una cum sacerdotibus & scribis in sacrum synedrium. Fourthly, they who were so joined in council with the Priests (2 Chronicles 19:8) are plainly distinguished from the Judges and Magistrates (verse 11). And so are the Princes and Rulers distinguished from the Elders (Acts 4:5; Judges 8:14; Deuteronomy 5:23; Joshua 8:33). Fifthly, we would know whether he thought that all the Magistrates of the Jews sat in council with the Priests, or some of them only: if some only, we desire either proof or probability who they were, and how many; if all, then should we by the like reason admit not the supreme Magistrate alone (which he seems to say) into the Synods of the Church, but all Magistrates whatever, and what a confusion should that be? Sixthly, those Elders that sat in the civil Sanhedrin, were Rulers by their sitting there; but the Elders which sat in the ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, either were not civil Magistrates, or at least sat not there as Magistrates. So do our Magistrates sometimes sit with us, as members of our Assemblies, not as Magistrates, but as Elders. Of the distinction of those two courts, which every one observes not, we shall speak more afterward.

We have said enough against Saravia, but Bilson does better deserve an answer, who alleges more specious reasons to prove, that the Elders of the Jews were their civil Magistrates. He says, there was no Senate nor Seniors among the Jews, but such as had power of life and death, of imprisonment, confiscation, banishment, &c., which he makes to appear thus: in the days of Ezra the punishment of contemners was forfeiture of their substance, and separation from the congregation (Ezra 10:8). The trial of secret murder was committed to the Elders of every city (Deuteronomy 21:3, 4). They delivered the willful murderer to the Avenger of blood, to be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:12). They condemned a stubborn son to death (Deuteronomy 21:19). They chastened a man who had spoken falsely of his wife, that he found her not a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:15, 16, 18). Answer: first, if it should be granted, that the Elders spoken of in these places, were civil Magistrates, this proves not that there were no ecclesiastical Elders among the Jews. Iustellus in his Annotations upon the Book of the Canons of the African Church, distinguishes between the civil Elders mentioned (Canon 91), who were called Seniores locorum, or Urbium, and the ecclesiastical Elders mentioned (Canon 100), who were called Seniores Ecclesiae, and Seniores Plebis: the former name distinguishing them from the civil Elders, the latter distinguishing them from Preaching Elders. So there might be the same two sorts of Elders among the Jews. And what then? It is enough for us that we find in the Jewish Church, some Elders joined with the Priests, and employed in things ecclesiastical. The Elders and Priests are joined together both in the New Testament, as (Matthew 26:59) the chief Priests and Elders; so in other places before cited: and likewise in the Old Testament (Exodus 24:1), Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and [illegible], and seventy of the Elders of Israel (Deuteronomy 27:1), Moses with the Elders, compared with verse 9, Moses and the Priests (Ezekiel 7:26), The Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsel from the ancients (Jeremiah 19:1), Take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the Priests. We find also the commandments of God first delivered to the Elders, and by them to the people (Exodus 12:21, 28; Exodus 19:7, 8). It is said (Deuteronomy 27:1), Moses with the Elders of Israel commanded the people. Upon which place Hugo Cardinalis says: Argumentum, &c. Here is an argument that a Prelate ought not to command anything without the counsel of the Elders.

Secondly, but it cannot be proved, that these Elders in the places objected, were judges or magistrates: no, the contrary appears from other places, which we have before alleged for the distinction of Elders from magistrates or judges: whereunto we may add, (2 Kings 10:1) To the rulers of Jezreel, to the Elders, and to them that brought up Ahab's children. And verse 5: He that was over the house, and he that was over the city, the Elders also, and the bringers up of the children, (Ezra 10:14) The Elders of every city, and the judges thereof.

Fourthly, we read of threescore and seventeen Elders in Succoth (Judges 8:14), whereas the greatest number of judges in one city among the Jews was three for smaller matters, and three and twenty for greater matters. This objection Bilson himself moves, but answers it not.

Fifthly, as for the places which he objects against us, the first two of them make against himself. In Ezra 10:8 we find not only the civil punishment of forfeiture, but also as Pellicanus on that place, and Zepperus de pol. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 7. do observe the ecclesiastical punishment of excommunication, or separation from the congregation: the former answering to the council of the princes, the latter to the council of the Elders. The place Deuteronomy 21:3-4 makes against him in three respects. First, the Elders of the city did but wash their hands over the beheaded heifer, and purge themselves before the Lord from the bloodshed, which was a matter rather ecclesiastical than civil, neque enim, &c. For there was no need of a judge here who should be present formally as judge, says Bonfrerius, the Jesuit, upon that place. Secondly, the controversy was decided by the word of the priests, verse 5. Thirdly, Tostatus thinks that the Elders and the judges are plainly distinguished, verse 2: Your Elders and your judges shall come forth. Quaeras hic, &c. You may here ask, says Pelargus, why the Elders of the people and the judges were both together called out? I answer, because God will have both the magistrate and the subjects to be innocent, &c. As for the other places, that which seems to prove most for the civil power of the Jewish Elders, is Deuteronomy 22; yet hear what that famous commentator, Tostatus Abulensis, says on that place, Quando talis, &c. When such a cause was to be judged, because it was very weighty, the Elders of the city did meet together with the judges thereof, for in such facts there is some place for conjecture, and the Elders who are the wiser sort, can herein be more attentive than others. So he notes upon Ruth 4:2 that the Elders sat in the gate about the controversy between Boaz and the other kinsman, not as judges, but as witnesses and beholders, that the matter might be done with the more gravity and respect. Which does further appear from verses 9 and 11. In like manner we answer to Deuteronomy 21:19: the judges decided that cause with advice and counsel of the Elders; and so the name of Elders in those places may be a name not of office, but of dignity, signifying men of chief note, for wisdom, gravity, and experience. In which sense the word Elders is taken (Genesis 50:7), as Tostatus and Rivetus expound that place. In the same manner we say of Deuteronomy 19:12, and in that case it is further to be remembered that the cities of refuge had a kind of a sacred designation and use, for the altar itself was sometimes a place of refuge (Exodus 21:14), and when the six cities of refuge were appointed, they were of the cities of the Levites (Numbers 35:6), that by the judgment and counsel of the Levites who should best understand the law of God, such controversies might be determined, as Pellicanus on that place says well. For this cause some read Joshua 20:7: They sanctified Kedesh, &c. Besides, if it be true that these causes were judged, not in the city where the murder was committed, but in the city of refuge, as Serrarius holds with Masius and Montanus, and alleges for it some very considerable reasons, then does Bilson's argument from Deuteronomy 19:12 fail also in this respect, for the Elders there mentioned are the Elders of the city where the murder was committed.