The third booke of commentaries vpon the Apostles Creede contayning the blasphemous positions of Iesuites and other later Romanists, concerning the authoritie of their Church: manifestly prouing that whosoeuer yeelds such absolute beleefe vnto it as these men exact, doth beleeue it better then Gods word, his Sonne, his prophets, Euangelists, or Apostles, or rather truly beeleeues no part of their writings or any article in this Creede. Continued by Thomas Iackson B. of Diuinitie and fellow of Corpus Christi College in Oxford.

CHAP. II.

The authority of the Sanhedrim not so vniuersall or absolute amongst the Iewes as the Papists make it, but was to bee limited by the for∣mer Rules.

1 ONe especiall place on which they stand, is from that Law in* 1.1 Deuteronomy, If there arise a mat∣ter too hard for thee in iudgement, betweene bloud & bloud, betweene plea and plea, betweene plague and plague, in the matters of controuersie within thy gates, then shalt thou arise, and goe vp vnto the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse, And thou shalt come vnto the Priestes of the Leuites, and to the Iudge that shall be in those daies, and aske, and they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgement, and thou shalt do according to that thing which they of that place (which the Lord hath chosen) shew thee, and thou shalt obserue to doe according to all that they informe thee: According to the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee

shalt thou doe, thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee, neither to the right hand nor to the left: And that man that will doe presumptuously, not hearkning vnto the Priest (that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there) or vn∣to the Iudge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away euill from Is∣rael, so all the people shall heare and feare, and doe no more pre∣sumptuously▪

2 This precept admits of many restrictions, any one of which doth take away all the force of our aduersaries obiections; First, it may (without preiudice to our cause) bee granted; although it cannot out of these words bee necessarily inferred; that God here prescribes obedience in the abstract, such as was to bee performed vnto those Priests and Iudges that liued, according to that pat∣terne which hee had set them. Thus may this precept of obe∣dience for the extent be vniuersall, and concern all causes what∣soeuer, spirituall or temporall; doubts of conscience or matters of this life: in all which such gouernours wereto bee obeyed; but conditionally [if they were such as God in his law required they should be] vnto such (as you heard before) hee gaue illumi∣nations extraordinary, such as the parties that were to obey, might haue perfect notice of. But how great soeuer the extent of this precept be: not one fyllable in it makes more for absolute obedience vnto spirituall, then vnto ciuill gouernors; for it is said indefinitely* 1.2 thou shalt doe according to that thing which they (eyther spirituall or temporall) of that place which the Lord hath chosen shall shew thee. And againe, the words are dis••unctiue, That man that will doe presumptuously, not hearkening vnto the Priest or vnto the Iudge, that man shall die; whether the Priest were to be supreme Iudge or no, it is not said, at the least the High Priest was not the chiefe man alwayes in the Councell, for hee was not al∣wayes admitted into the supreme Consistory or Sanhedrim, which is established in this place, yeta 1.3 Bellarmine will haue the ^b defini∣tiue

sentence belong vnto the Priest, and the execution of it to the ciuill magistrate: so indeed the present Romish Church in spirituall cases would bee iudge, and make Christian Princes her hangmen,* 1.4 but their practise must not be taken for an infallible ex∣position of that Law, whence they seeke to iustifie their practise quite contrary to the practise of the Iewish Church and Syna∣gogue. Nor doth Bellarmine or any other, beside the base parasi∣ticall Canonists, or the Popes trencher chaplaines, deny, but that in many ciuill causes, the Prince or temporall Magistrate hath a definitiue sentence; can hee then gather out of any circumstance of this place, that onely spirituall causes are here meant? nay, hee confesseth that the law is generall concerning all doubtes that might arise out of the law; yea it is most probable, that it onely concernes ciuill controuersies, and Bellarmines reason to proue, that it includeth spirituall causes, or matters of religion, is most i∣dle. The occasion of this Law (saith hee) was for them that did serue other Gods as appeares, out of the beginning of the Chap∣ter; now the seruice of other Gods is a point of Religion. But what though Moses in the former part of this Chapter speake of I∣dolaters, must this law therefore concerne Idolaters. In the for∣mer part hee speaketh onely of Idolaters, but this law is not onely for them by Bellarmines confession. Yea the circumstances of the place, and the expresse law against Idolaters mentioned before, euince, that in this Chapter, as in the former, he first sets downe lawes concerning the true seruice of God, and in the latte•• part giues precepts for the obseruation of the second Table, the main∣taining of loue, by the finall composition of all controuersies that might arise betwixt neighbours. In the former law Idolaters are sentenced to death, and Idolatry (saith Bellarmine) is a point of Religion; Was the Priest alone then to giue sentence, and the ciuill Magistrate onely to execute it. There is not the least pre∣tence for it out of this Text. Any ordinary Magistrate might ex∣ecute him that was lawfully conuicted of this crime, nor was it so hard a matter to iudge, who was an Idolater amongst the Iewes, as it is to determine what is an heresie amongst the Romanists. This was to be proued by witnesses, not by Logicall proofe or force of speculatiue reason: Had the cunningest Iesuite in the world been taken amongst them kneeling down before an Image

and praying to it, all the distinctions in the master of sentences, or Aquinas or both their Commentators could not haue redeemed him, against two honest men that would haue sworne hee would haue done thus much; there had beene no appeale from any City in Iudah, vnto any higher Court; his doome had been read in the gates, and without them hee should (as Homer speakes) haue put on a stony coat.

3 That the Kings of Iudah were only to execute the Priests defi∣nitiue sentence in all hard controuersies, is a positiō wel deseruing execution without appeale at Princes hands. And no doubt but it did so amongst the Iewes. The former Court as is most proba∣ble, was to cease, when they had a King amongst them. And Mo∣ses in the former Chapter, after he had giuen the other law for en∣ding controuersies, giues the law for the election of their king, if so bee they would haue one: as if the former Court had then ceased to bee the supreme Tribunall; seeing all Subiects might appeale vnto the King from it, in which this Soueraignty did be∣fore reside, as being the supreme Tribunall, whence there could be no appeale.

4 The King in the Law concerning his qualification, is com∣manded to haue the Law of his God written out.* 1.5 And it shall bee with him, and he shall read therein all the dayes of his life, that hee may learne to feare the Lord his God, and to keepe all the words of his Law, and these Ordinances for to doe them, that his heart bee not lifted vp aboue his brethren, and that he turne not from the commandement to the right hand, or to the left. Was hee to take all this pains, onely that hee might learne to execute the Priestes definitiue sentence? This any heathen might haue done. But the Kings of Israel, al∣beit they were not to meddle in the execution of the Priests of∣fice, were notwithstanding to bee so well skilled in Scriptures as to bee able to iudge, whether the Priest did according to that Law which God had set him to follow, and to controle his definitiue sentence, if it were euidently contrary to Gods word, which both were absolutely bound to obey.

5 It may perhaps here be obiected, that the King had no such assurance of infallibility in iudgement as the Priest had, & there∣fore it was requisite he should rely vpon the Priestes definitiue sentence. What construction then can any Iesuite make of these

words; A diuine sentence shall bee in the lips of the King, his mouth shall not transgresse, he saith not, in execution of iudgement giuen by the Priests, but in iudgement giuen by himself, seeing it is an abo∣mination to Kings to commit wickednes, for the throane is established by iustice. And againe,* 1.6 Righteous lips (such the Priests should as and might haue beene, but vsually were not) are the delight of Kings, and the King loueth him that speaketh right things. This place if wee respect either the abstract forme of precept, or plenitude of Gods promise for abiliment to performe it, is more plaine and peremptory for the Kings, then any can bee brought for the high Priests infallibility, in giuing definitiue sentence; yet doth it not necessarily inferre, Kings shall not; but rather shewes that they should not, or that they might not at any time erre in iudgement, so they would stedfastly follow those rules which God had prescri∣bed them. For when God saith; A diuine sentence shall bee in the lips of Kings; this speech doth no more argue a perpetuall cer∣tainety in giuing righteous sentence, then if he had said; A cor∣rupt or erroneous sentence shall not be in the lips of Kings, or his mouth shal not transgresse in iudgement. For as that which God saith, shall not be done, oftimes is done: so may that which God saith, shall bee done, bee oftimes left vndone. Who is hee then would make this collection: God saith, Thou shalt not steale, that is no man shall steale, ergo there can be no theeues, no theft com∣mitted, yet is our aduersaries collection as foolish, The Priests lips shall preserue knowledge, Ergo they cannot erre in giuing definitiue sentence, or againe, The spirit shall lead you into all truth, they shall be all taught of God; therefore the Church shall be infallibly taught by the spirite, and shall as infallibly teach others, liue they as they list.

6 These places shew what should bee done, and what God for his part will infallibly performe (so men would be obedient to his word) but neither doe these, or any of like nature, include any in∣fallibility of not erring without performance of due obedience in practise of life; nor doe they necessarily conclude, that men al∣wayes shall performe such obedience. The most which they in∣ferre, is this, that Gouernours by duety are bound to performe, that performing such obedience in practise of life, they might bee freer from error, in their doctrine or definitiue sentence. And it

was abstinence and integrity of life that was to preserue sincerity of iudgement in Princes as well as Priests lips, for which reason Princes had their precepts of temperance, answerable to those rules prescribed for the Priests. So Salomon teacheth kings,* 1.7 Giue not thy strength vnto a woman, nor thy wayes, this is to destroy Kings. it is not for Kings, O Lemuel, it is not for Kings to drinke wine, nor for Princes strong drinke, lest he drinke and forget the decree, and change the iudgement of all the children of affliction. This place euidentlie shewes, that if their Princes were of riotous or intemperate liues, they had no promise that they should not peruert the iudgement of the children of affliction. The Conclusion hence arising is; all the places that can bee brought, either for the King or Priests au∣thority, rather shew what manner of men they should be both in life and iudgement, then assure them of any infallibility of iudge∣ment, if they be dissolute in life. This was a point neuer dreamt of by any, before the Popes notoriously infamous liues, did dis∣credite the titles of sanctity and infallibility (which from a conceit of their predecessors integrity they haue vsurped) and inforced their parasites to frame a distinction of sanctity in doctrine sepa∣rated from sanctity in life.

7 It is questionable, whether both Priestes and Princes of Iu∣dah had not an extraordinary priuiledge aboue all other nations, both for being infallible in their definitiue sentences whilest they liued according to the lawes which God had giuen them, and also for their more then ordinary possibility of liuing according to such lawes. Gods blessings (as is most probable) in both these respects, were extraordinary vnto their Princes and Priests: yet not so infinitely extraordinary, that either of them might without presumptuous blasphemy hope for ordinary integrity (such as the more ciuill sort of heathens had) much lesse for any absolute infal∣libility, if they were extraordinarily wicked in their liues, or vn∣faithfull in their other dealings. Euen the peoples wickednesse did impaire the force and vertue of these extraordinary blessings pro∣mised to their Kings and Priests, God gaue them priests as well as Princes in his anger, such as should be plyable to their humor, not such as should infallibly direct them against the suggestions of the world and flesh for their spirituall good. So that these gra∣cious promises both for their spirituall and temporall gouernors

sincerity in iudgement, did depend in part vpon the condition of this peoples life.

8 The vsuall Prouerbe was most true (though the words thus inuerted) like people, like Priests. Thus did the wise sonne of Si∣ra••h interpret Gods promises both to Priest and Princes* 1.8 Be∣cause Phineas the sonne of Eleazar had zeale in the feare of the Lord, and stood vp with good courage of heart, when the people were turned backe, and made reconciliation for Israel; therefore was there a couenāt of peace made with him, that hee should be the chiefe of the Sanctuarie, and of his people, & that he and his posterity should haue the dignity of the Priesthood for euer. And according vnto the couenant made with Da∣uid, that the inheritance of the Kingdom should remaine to his sonne of the Tribe of Iudah, so the heritage of Aaron should bee to the onely son of his sonne, and to his seed. God giue vs wisdome in our heart to iudge his people in righteousnesse, that the good things that they haue be not abolished, and that their glory may endure for their posterity.

9 For what wee haue said it is most euident, that the precepts inioyning obedience vnto ciuill Magistrates, are as large & ample as any can be found for obedience vnto spirituall gouernours, and what limitations soeuer the one did, the other might admit, du∣ring the time of the Law. The promises of Gods extraordinarie fauour, for directing both in their proceedings, were equall to both alwayes conditionall in both cases.

10 As for this Law, Deut. 17. the very nature of the Text and circumstances annexed thereto,* 1.9 inferre no more then this; That God would haue a supreame Tribunall amongst the Israelites, wherein all con••rouersis which could not be ended in inferiour Courts, were to bee finally determined, lest priuate contentions might grow to publike dissentions, or wranglings for petty da∣mages, turne to the ouerthrow of the state by disturbance of common peace. It may bee admitted then that absolute obedi∣ence is here enioyned, but not vniuersally absolute, nor in all cau∣ses, but in causes of controuersie betwixt man and man, not in causes betwixt men and their owne consciences. And although the ground of controuersers plea might bee from some spirituall law, (as concerning succession in the Priesthood, &c.) or haue some spirituall matters annexed as consequent, the Iudges cen∣sure

was to extend onely vnto mens ciuill carriage, in such con∣trouersies, and the Plaintiffes were to prosecute their right or title (were it matter of wrong, of inheritance, spirituall or temporall) no farther then the sentence of his Court did permit. All were bound vpon paine of death to sit down with their priuate losse, rather then raise tumults or endanger the publike forme of go∣uernement established in Israel. Euen when they knew the Iud∣ges sentence in particular to be erroneous, they were to doe or suffer as hee commanded, to remit their right, to let goe that hold and interest which they thought they had in matters of tem∣porall consequence (though perhaps of spiritual title) and vnder∣goe what corporall penalty soeuer the Priest or Iudge (whether∣soeuer were supreme magistrates) did inioyn them; but they were not bound to thinke as the Priest or Iudge thought, nor to holde their sentence was alwayes agreeable to the law of God. Albeit much easier it was for the Sanhedrim, then for the moderne Ro∣mish Consistory, to resolue more controuersies brought vnto them by this diuine rule. Because the ancient Israelites did not vse to trou∣ble their Priests or Iudges with such quirkes and quiddittes, as coined for the most part by Schoole-men, haue bred greatest contenti∣on in the Christian world, such as neuer could haue beene deci∣ded by the iudgement of Vrim or Thummin, not by Prophets, vi∣sions or dreames: Hee that had desired any, must haue gone to Endor for resolution, Sam. 1. c. 28. v. 7. In Ierusalem or Shiloh (whiles they flourished) the proposers of such controuersies should haue bin punished for their curiosity, which amongst the Israelites had beene as hatefull as the sinne of Witch-craft. The want of such a Tribunall as this, for punishing contentions and curious spi∣rites, hath caused such fruitlesse contentions, and nice que∣stions, as cannot possibly bee resolued, once set abroach or pro∣secuted, but might easily haue beene preuented by the religi∣ous care and industry of such a supreme Consistory in euery king∣dome.

What hath beene said concerning the meaning of this place, Deut. 17. is confirmed by the practise of the Iewes and their an∣cient Records; First, that not onely conditionall, but absolute obedience is here inioyned, is not probable out of those wordes,

v. 11.* 1.10 [according to the Law which they shall teach thee:] not onely the written law of God (as some will haue it) but such customes as were receiued in this Court, thogh but probably deduced from the written law, or otherwise inuented by their magistrates in cases omitted by the Law-giuer. All such customes, decrees, or ordinances were to bee obeyed absolutely in such matters as did concern mens temporall losses or commodities, there was not appeale to any other Court on earth, for the reuersing of any sen∣tence giuen in this; to haue attempted thus much, by this law, had beene present death; and by the same all Christian Princes iustly might, yea ought to put death all such, as in any cause spiri∣tuall or temporall, vpon any occasion whatsoeuer, shall ap∣peale to Rome from the chiefe Tribunall allotted for the hearing of such causes in their natiue Country: for by nature and Chri∣stian duety, all are bound to abide the sentence of that Tribu∣nall; though not to approue it, yet not to resist it, or oppose vi∣olence vnto it, though it offer violence to them: for God onely must take vengeance of their abusing of that authority, which hee had giuen them for others good, not for their harme. Would God all Christian Princes would put this law in practise, and ful∣fil Gods word in the forementioned place, that al might die which doe thus presumptuously: that so euill, and (the mischiefe of mischiefes) all appeales to Rome, might bee taken away from Israel; that so all Christian people hereafter might heare and feare, and doe no more presumptuously.

Secondly, that the high Priest was not the infallible Iudge, nor aboue Kings in giuing definitiue sentence, is most euidently confirmed by consent of Iewish* 1.11 antiquity; for the High Priest was not admitted into their chiefe Consistory but vpon this condi∣tion, if he were a wise man, and being admitted, yet was hee not to sway al as he pleased, for so is it said in the same place, that the king was not to be of the* 1.12 Sanhedrim, because they were forbidden to contend with him, with the High Priest they might. But the Pro∣phets of God did alwayes in their doctrine withstand either the Priests, Prophets, Kings or Iudges, as often as they went * contra stationes Montis Sinai.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Deut. 17. v. 8. 9. &c.
• * 1.2

  Ver. 10. a Obijcit Bren∣tius, hoc loco non solùm ad Sar••ce dotem, sed ad Iudicem etiam remitti eos, qui dubitant, iudicē autem fuisse po∣liticum princi∣pem. RESPON∣DEO, nomine Iudicis posse tum intelligi Princi∣pem Sacerdotum, nam in Hebraeo est: Ascende ad Sacerdotes, & ad Iudicem: quasi diceret, ad Concilium Sa∣cerdotum, & eorum principem, summum Sacerdotem. Dico secundò, si intelligamus nomine Iudicis politicum prin∣cipem, tum esse distincta ossi••ia. Nam Sacerdoti tribuitur sententia definitiua, iudici antem exequutio in contu∣maces: Qui superbierit, inquit, nolens obedire Sacerdotis imperio, ex decreto Iudicis moriatur. Bellar.de verb. Dei interpret. l. 3. c. 4.
• a 1.3

  This distinction is quite contrary to the words of the Text, for the He∣brewes cal such as execute sentence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in opposition to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vsed in this place which signifieth such a magistrate as giueth definitiue sentence Vid. Fagu. in 16. Deuteronem.
• * 1.4

  The Law of God, Deut. 17. did concerne temporall cau∣ses, either on∣ly, or especi∣ally.
• * 1.5

  Deut. 17. 19.
• * 1.6

  Prou. 16. 10. That the in∣fallibility of kings may bee defended with as great pro∣bability of Scriptures as the infallibili∣ty of priests. Prou. 16. 13.
• * 1.7

  Pro. 31. ver. 3. 4. 5.
• * 1.8

  Eccles. 45. v. 23, 24. 25.
• * 1.9

  That this law of Deut. doth iustifie our English lawes for exe∣cuting priests and Iesuites, or all such as acknowledge the Pope su∣preme Iudge in causes Ec∣clesiasticall.
• * 1.10

  Tria genera doctrinarum & sententiarum veteribus fue∣runt. Primum rece•• tum crede∣batur a Mose ac Prophetis, quod Cauala no∣minatur. Secun∣dum, quod opi∣natione iudicum constitit, vt in Scripturae locis enarrandis, quae ad Occonomiam pertinebant. Ex quo intelligitur causa, quam ••b rem sub priore templo & prio∣ribus annis po∣sterioris, tanta concordia Iudae∣orum Ecclesia administrata sit, donec enim mag∣num iudicium viguit omnia certo desinita, summo consensu recipiebantur. Exinde in sen∣tentia facienda, & respondendo de lege saepissimè coniectu••is con∣nix•• sunt, Et ta∣men quod sic e∣rat pronuncia••ū, pro lege recipi∣baturl Tertiam genus quod s••a∣tuunt vltra legē, quo illa defen∣ditur, seu obiecto sepimento, vt prius v••olandum sit hoc, quam in lege a•• quid so∣ris admittatur. Hoc Christi domini aetate inuerterunt, Nam propter traditiones reliquerunt legem Dei. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 interim duo genera, alia perpetuo esse voluerunt alia tempora••ia. Fag••us in hunc locum.
• * 1.11

  Sed nec rex in San∣hedrim admittebatur, eo quod prehibitum si contendere eum eo. Sacerdòs vero magnus recipieba••••a modo••••pien∣tiae praeditus esset. Fagius in cap. ••6. Deut. ex Hebraeis.
• * 1.12

  Vide Fagium in cap. 10. Deut. and the annotations vnto the 9. §. of the next Chapter.