Part 1 — Chapter 12: The Extravagancies of Whitgift and Saravia in the Matter of Ruling Elders

These two disputers do not (as Doctor Field) altogether oppose the government of ruling elders, but with certain restrictions; about which notwithstanding they differ between themselves. Whitgift allows of ruling elders under a tyrant, but not under a Christian magistrate, but Saravia says they cannot be under an infidel magistrate. Me thinks I see here Sampson's foxes, with their tails knit together, and a firebrand between them, yet their heads looking sundry ways. To begin with Whitgift, he says in one place: I know that in the primitive church, they had in every church seniors, to whom the government of the congregation was committed, but that was before there was any Christian prince or magistrate, etc. In another place: My reason, why it (the Church) may not be governed under a Christian magistrate, as it may under a tyrant is this: God has given the chief authority in the government of the Church to the Christian magistrate, which could not be so, if your seigniory might as well retain their authority under a Christian prince, and in the time of peace, as under a tyrant, and in the time of persecution; for tell me, I pray you, what authority ecclesiastical remains to the civil magistrate, where this seigniory is established?

He who pleases may find this opinion largely confuted by Beza de Presbyterio contra Erasmum, and by I. B. A. C. polit. civil. & Eccles. In the mean while I answer. First, T. C. had made a sufficient reply hereunto (which Whitgift here in his defence should have confuted, but has not), namely, that if the seniors under a tyrant had meddled with any office of a magistrate, then there had been some cause why a godly magistrate being in the Church, the office of a senior, or at least so much as he exercised of the office of a magistrate, should have ceased.

But since they did only assist the pastor in matters ecclesiastical, it follows, that as touching the office of elders, there is no distinction between times of peace and persecution. Secondly, there were seniors among the Jews under godly kings, and in times of peace: why not likewise among us? Thirdly, the ecclesiastical power is distinct from the civil, both in the subject, object, and end; so that the one does not hinder the other. The magistrate's power is to punish the outward man with an outward punishment, which the presbytery cannot hinder, for he may civilly bind whom the presbytery spiritually looses, and civilly loose, whom the presbytery spiritually binds, and that because the magistrate seeks not the repentance and salvation of the delinquent by his punishment (as the presbytery does) but only the maintenance of the authority of his laws, together with the quietness and preservation of the commonwealth.

From where it comes, that the delinquent escapes not free of the magistrate, though he be penitent and not obstinate. 4. How thought Whitgift, that the Christian magistrate can do those things which the seigniory did under a tyrant? Can the magistrate by himself determine questions of faith? Can he know what order and decency in circumstances is fittest for each congregation? Can he excommunicate offenders, etc. 5. When bishops exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction (yes, and the civil too) this is thought no wrong to princes: is it a wrong in the presbytery, yet not in this prelacy? Good Lord, what a mystery is this! 6. When presbyters are established in their full power, there remains much power to the prince even in things ecclesiastical, as to take diligent heed to the whole estate of the Church within his dominions, to indict synods, and civilly to proceed in the same, to ratify the constitutions thereof, and to add to them the strength of a civil sanction, to punish heretics, and all that disobey the assemblies of the Church, to see that no matter ecclesiastical be carried factiously or rashly, but that such things be determined in free assemblies, to provide for scholars, colleges, and kirks, that all corrupt ways of entering into the ministry, by simony, bribing patrons, etc. be repressed, and finally to compel all men to do their duty according to the Word of God, and laws of the Church. 7. Whatever be the power of the supreme magistrate, Ecclesiae tamen, etc. Yet let him leave to the Church and to the ecclesiastical rulers (such as are the ministers of the Gospel, elders and deacons) their own power in handling ecclesiastical things, untouched and whole, says Danaeus. For the ecclesiastical power does no more hinder the civil administration, than the art of singing hinders it, says the Augustan confession. 8. We may answer by a just recrimination, that the prelacy (not the presbytery) is prejudicial to the power of princes, and has often encroached upon the same. The bishops assembled in the eighth council of Constantinople ordained that bishops should not light from their horses, when they chance to meet princes, nor basely bow before them, and that if any prince should cause a bishop to disparage himself by doing otherwise, he should be excommunicated for two years. They also discharged princes from being present in any synod, except the ecumenical. The first council of Toledo ordains that Quoties Episcoporum Hispanorum Synodus convenerit, toties universalis Concilii decretum propter salutem Principum factum, peractis omnibus in Synodo recitetur, ut iniquorum mens territa corrigatur. From which canon Osiander collects, that some of the bishops were not faithful and loyal to the kings of Spain. The inquisition of Spain, Anno 1568, presented to King Philip twelve articles against the Netherlands, one whereof was, that the king write to and command the clergy of the Netherlands, that with the inquisition they should accept of fifteen new bishops, the which should be free from all secular jurisdiction, yes, in cases of treason. Now as touching the contrary conceit of Saravia, he allows such elders as the Jewish Church had to be joined now with pastors under a Christian magistrate, but under an infidel magistrate, he says they could have no place; for he takes the Jewish elders to have been their magistrates, and that in like manner, none but Christian magistrates should sit with the ministers of the Word in ecclesiastical courts, princes and nobles in general or national councils, and magistrates of cities in particular consistories. This is as foul an error, as that of Whitgift; for 1. His opinion of the Jewish elders, that they were their magistrates, we have confuted before. 2. Though it were so, that no ruling elders ought to be admitted now except Christian magistrates, yet might they have place under an infidel prince: as Joseph under Pharaoh, Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar. There have been both Christian churches, and Christian magistrates under heretical, yes, infidel princes. 3. If Christian magistrates be come in place of the Jewish seniors, and ought to be joined with the ministers of the Word in the consistories of the church, we demand quo nomine, quo jure? Whether do they sit as Christian magistrates, or as men of singular gifts chosen for that effect? If as magistrates, then shall we make a mixture and confusion of civil and ecclesiastical function, else how shall men by virtue of civil places sit in spiritual courts? If as men of singular gifts chosen to sit, then may others as well as they having the like gifts and election be admitted to sit also. 4. Saravia contradicts himself, for a little after he admits grave and godly men in the judicatories of the Church, whether they be magistrates or private men, sive illi magistratu fungantur sive in rep. vivant privati.