The fifth, ‎‏שאל אוב‏‎ Schoel Ob, a consulter with Ob, or with familiar spirits. Ob signifieth properly a bottle, and is applied in divers places of Scripture to Magicians, because they being possessed with an evil spirit, speak with a soft and hollow voice, as out of a bottle. The Greek calleth them Ἐγγαστριμύτης Ventriloquos; such whose voice seemeth to proceed out of their belly.[512] Such a Diviner was the Damosel, Acts 16. 16. in St. Augustines judgement,[513] and is probably thought so by most Expositors, who are of opinion, that the spirit of Python with which this Damosel was possessed, is the same which the spirit of Ob was amongst the Hebrews. Hence the Witch of Endor, whom Saul requested to raise up Samuel, is said in Hebrew to have consulted with Ob; but among the Latine Expositors she is commonly translated Pythonissa, one possessed with the spirit of Python.

The sixth is, ‎‏ידעני‏‎ Iiddegnoni, a Wizard; in the Greek, he is translated sometimes Γνώστης, a cunning-man. In both Languages he had his name from knowledge, which either the Wizard professed himself to have, or the common people thought him to have. The Rabbies say,[514] he was so called in Hebrew from a certain beast named by them Jadua, in shape resembling a man, because these Wizards when they did utter their Prophecies, held a bone of this Beast between their teeth. This haply might be some Diabolical Sacrament or Ceremony, used for the Confirmation of the league between Satan and the Wizard. Prophane History[515] mentioneth Divinations of the like kind, as that Magicians were wont to eat the principal parts and members of such beasts which they deemed Prophetical, thinking thereby, that by a kind of μετεμψύχωσις the Soul of such Beasts would be conveyed into their bodies, whereby they might be enabled for Prophecy.

The seventh is ‎‏דורש אל המתים‏‎ Doresch el hammethim; the Greek answereth word for word, ἐπερωτῶν τοὺς νεκροὺς, An enquirer of the Dead, a Necromancer. Such Diviners consulted with Satan in the shape of a dead man. A memorable example we find recorded, 1 Sam. 29. There, King Saul about to war with the Philistines (God denying to answer him either by dreams, or by Urim, or by Prophets) upon the fame of the Witch of Endor, he repaired to her, demanding that Samuel might be raised up from the dead, to tell him the issue of the war. Now that this was not in truth Samuel, is easily evinced, both by testimonies of the learned, and reasons. First, it is improbable, that God who had denied to answer him by any ordinary means, should now deign him an answer so extraordinary. Secondly, no Witch or Devil can disturb the bodies or Souls of such as die in the Lord, because they rest from their labors, Rev. 14. 13. Thirdly, if it had been Samuel, he would doubtless have reproved Saul for consulting with Witches.

The eighth is ‎‏שאל מקלו‏‎ Scoel maklo, A Consulter with his Staff. Hos. 4. 12. Jerome saith the manner of this divination was thus: That if the doubt were between two or three Cities, which first should be assaulted; to determin this, they wrote the names of the Cities upon certain staves or arrows, which being shaked in a quiver together the first that was pulled out determined the City. Others[516] deliver the manner of this consultation to have been thus: The consulter measured his staff by spans or by the length of his finger, saying, as he measured, I will go, I will not go, I will do such a thing, I will not do it, and as the last span fell out, so he determined: This was termed by the Heathens ῥαβδομαντεία or βελομαντεία, Divination by rod or arrows.

The ninth was ‎‏ראה בכבד‏‎ Roe baccabed, a diviner by intrales, Ezek. 22. 21. Nebuchadnezzar being to make war both with the Jews, and the Ammonites, and doubting in the way, against whether of these he should make his first on-set: First he consulted with his Arrows and Staves, of which hath been spoken immediately before: Secondly, he consulted with the intrals of beasts. This practice was generally received among the Heathens, and because the liver was the principal member observed, it was called ἡπατοσκοπία, Consultation with the liver. Three things are observed in this kind of divination. First, the colour of the intrals, whether they were all well coloured. Secondly, their place, whether none were displaced. Thirdly, the number, whether none were wanting; among those that were wanting, the want of the liver, or the heart chiefly presaged ill: That day Julius Cæsar was slain, it is storied, that in two fat Oxen then sacrificed, the heart was wanting in them both.

THE FIFTH BOOK
OF THEIR CONSISTORIES.

CHAP. I.
Their Courts of Judgment, especially their Ecclesiastical Consistory.

There were in Israel distinct Courts, consisting of distinct persons, the one principally for Church-businesses, the other for affairs in the Commonwealth; the one an Ecclesiastical Consistory; the other a Civil Judicatory:[517] Of these, and their several censures, and punishments, it remaineth now to be spoken.

These different Consistories, or Courts of Justice, we find first distinguisht, Deut. 17. 12. He which will not hearken unto the Priest, nor unto the Judge. Where the people of Israel are directed, in what cases, and to what persons they should make their Appeals from inferiour Courts; namely, the Priests, in matters spiritual, or ceremonial, and to the Judges, in matters civil or criminal. These two Courts are more plainly distinguished, 2 Chron. 19. where Jehosaphat, reforming many abuses in Church and Commonwealth, first appointed thorow-out all the fenced Cities of Judah, secular Judges to determine criminal causes, ver. 5. And at Jerusalem he appointed a Spiritual Court, consisting of Levites, Priests, and the chief Fathers of Israel, vers. 8. And in causes spiritual for the Lord, Amariah the High priest was chief: in causes criminal for the King, Zebadiah was chief, ver. 11. Likewise the Prophet Jeremiah is condemned to die by the Consistory of Priests, Jer. 26. 8. But by the Consistory of Princes, or secular Judges sitting in the gate, he was absolved and discharged, vers. 16. Yea, although the tyranny of Antiochus, and the troublesome times insuing had bred such a confusion in matters of Government among the Jews, that an evident distinction can hardly be found in the New-Testament, yet some foot-steps, and imperfect tokens of both Courts are there observable, principally, Matth. 21. 23. It. Matth. 26. 3. The Chief Priests and the Elders, of the people, are named as two distinct Consistories: and each Consistory seemeth to be differenced by its proper name: The secular Consistory termed συνέδριον, A Councel: the spiritual termed συναγωγὴ, a Synagogue. They will deliver you up to the Councels, and they will scourge you in their Synagogues, Matth. 10. 17. Hence that great Assembly of Prophets and holy men called together by Esra, for the reformation of the Church, after their return from Babylon, is called Synagoga magna, A great Synagogue.

The Office of the Ecclesiastical Court, was to put a difference between things holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean, Levit. 10. 10. and to determine Appeals in controversies of difficulty. It was a representative Church. Hence is that Dic Ecclesiæ, Mat. 18. 16. Tell the Church, because unto them belonged the power of Excommunication, the several sorts of which censure follow in the next Chapter.

Only here take notice, that as in the Civil Consistories, consisting of seventy Judges, which was the supreme Court, there were two sate as Chief; namely, one whom they termed Nasi, The Lord Chief Justice; and the other whom they termed Abbeth din, the Father of the Senate: so in the Ecclesiastical Consistory the High-priest and his Sagan, or second High priest sate chief there, 2 King. 23. 4. That the High priest sate in the Sanhedrim necessarily, is an errour;[518] for he was not elected into that Company, except he were a man of extraordinary wisdome. Again, note, that sometimes both Consistories assembled together, as often as the matters to be determined were partly ceremonial, partly civil, partly belonging to the Church, partly to the Commonwealth: which being not noted, causeth the Courts not to be distinguished by many Expositors. This meeting and joyning of both Consistories often appeareth in the Gospel. The chief Priests and Elders meet together.

CHAP. II.
Of their Excommunication.

They had three Degrees of Excommunication. The first was called in the N. T. a casting out of the Synagogue, John 9. 22. by the Jews[519] Niddui i. a separation or putting away. It signified[520] a separation from all commerce or society either with man or woman for the distance of four Cubits; also from eating or drinking with any; from the use of the marriage-bed, from shaving, washing, or the like, according to the pleasure of the Judge, and the quality of the offence. It was of force 30 days, yet so that they might be shortened upon repentance. He that was thus excommunicated, had power to be present at divine service, to teach others, and learn of others; he hired servants, and was hired himself, but always on condition of the aforesaid separation. If he remained impenitent, according to the pleasure of the Judge, his punishment was increased, either to the doubling or the tripling of the time, or to the extending of it to their lives end; his male-children were not circumcised; if he died without repentance, then, by the sentence of the Judge, a stone was cast upon his Coffin or Bier, to shew that he was worthy to be stoned. They mourned not for such a one with solemn lamentation, they followed him not unto the grave, nor buried him with common burial.

The second was called in the N. T. a giving one over to Satan, 1 Cor. 5. 5. By the Jews ‎‏חרם‏‎ Cherem. For the better understanding of this word, we must know that it is not used in this sense in the Old Testament; there we shall find it applied to persons, or to things; if to persons, then it signifieth a devotion of them to God by their death, Levit. 27. 29. If to things, then it signifieth a devotion of them unto God, by separating them from ordinary use. Hence it is that Achan is punisht for stealing the devoted thing, Josh. 7. Persons thus devoted, were termed by the Greeks ἀναθέματα; and devoted things, ἀναθήματα.[521] Notwithstanding, in the Apostles time, both Cherem and ἀνάθεμα, signified a second degree of Excommunication, differing from the former. First because it was not done in a private Court, but published in the audience of the whole Church: Secondly, maledictions and curses were added out of the Law of Moses, At the publishing hereof Candles were kindled; and when the curses were ended, they put out the candles, in token that the excommunicate person was deprived of the light of heaven. This kind of excommunication was exercised against the incestuous person, and against Hymenæus,[522] and Alexander.[523]

The third was called in the New Test. by the Syriack name Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16. that is, the Lord cometh; Maran signifieth the Lord, and Atha cometh and this they say was instituted by Enoch, Judg. 11. The Jews called it Schammatha, the Etymology of which word I find to be twofold. Some say[524] it soundeth as much as Maran Atha the Lord cometh. Schem signifieth the Lord, and Atha cometh: others say[525] it soundeth there is death, Schem signifying there and Mitha death. Hence we may render it an excommunication to death. And this is thought[526] to be the reason of that phrase, 1 John 5. 16. There is a sin unto death, i. which deserveth excommunication to death. R. Gersom[527] forbade the breaking open of letters, under the penalty of all three sorts of excommunication. And this was termed Excommunicatio in secreto nominis tetragrammati: see the form thereof in the Chapter of the Sadduces.

In the Greek Church there were[528] four degrees of this censure. 1. Σύστασις. Those were censured with this degree, who were only debarred the Lords Table: as for enterance into the Church, hearing the Word, praying with the Congregations, they enjoyed equal liberty with other Christians, they might stand by and behold others receive the Sacrament, but themselves did not partake thereof, whence they were called Stantes. 2. ὑπόπτωσις, concerning this censure, all that I read of it is thus; that he that is thus censured hath admittance into the Church.[529] But his place must be behind the Pulpit, and he must depart with the Catechumeni, that is such Pagans who were gained to the Christian Faith, but not fully admitted into the Church, because they wanted Baptism, and therefore that they might not pray promiscuously with other Christians, there was a place behind the Quire of the Church in manner of Cloysters, allotted to them, and was from them called Catechumenum:[530] This I take to be the place of this second degree of Excommunication, so that the force of this censure I think to consist in these three things. First, they were barred the Lords Table. Secondly, they might not stand by at the administration of the Lords supper (which was allowed in the first degree) and this appeareth clearly, because the Catechumeni departed always at the celebration of the Communion, for to them principally it was said, Ite missa est. Thirdly, though they might ὑποπεσεῖν fall down on their knees and pray, and were thence called Succumbents, yet this they might not do in the Congregation, but only in that place behind the quire or pulpit, which was allotted to the Catechumeni, and in this also this second degree differeth from the first. The third sort of censure was ἀκρόασις, the party thus censured was permitted to come no further than the Church Porch, where it was lawful for him to hear the Scriptures read, but not to joyn in prayer, not to approach the Lords Table, whence such were termed Audients. The Fourth, and last sort, was πρόκλαυσις, persons under this censure stood quite without the Church, requesting those that entered in, with tears and weeping to petition the Lord for mercy toward them, whence they were called Plorantes.

Seeing it is commonly thought, that Cain was censured by the first degree of Excommunication, called Niddui, and that the last called Schammmatha was of Enochs constitution; both these being of such antiquity, I dare not say that the three degrees of Excommunication were borrowed from the three sorts of uncleanness, which excluded people out of the three Camps, though there was an observable proportion between them.[531] Niddui may be parrallel’d with the exclusion out of the Camp of God alone, which befel those that were defiled by touch of the dead: Cherem may be compared to the exclusion out of the Camp of God, and the Camp of Levi, which befel those that were defiled of an issue. Schammatha may be compared with the exclusion out of all three Camps, the Camp of God, the Camp of Levi, and the Camp of Israel, this befel those that were defiled with leprosie; and from the Jews, it is probable that the Greek and Latine Churches borrowed their degrees of Excommunication.

CHAP. III.
Their Civil Consistories, what persons were necessarily present in them.

In many things men might be sinful in respect of Gods Law, though not liable to punishment, in respect of mans; thou shalt not avenge, nor be mindful of wrong, Levit. 19. 18. which the Hebrews explain thus, To avenge, is to deny a good turn to one who formerly denied him. To be mindful of a wrong, is to do a good turn to one who formerly would not do so much for him; but at the doing thereof, to upbraid the other of his unkindness. They illustrate it thus: when Reuben said to Simeon, Lend me thy Hatchet; he answereth, I will not lend him: Afterward Simeon had need to borrow an Hatchet of Reuben, and saith unto him, lend me thy Hatchet: Reuben saith unto him, I will not lend him, thou wouldst not lend me thine: this is ‎‏נקימה‏‎ Nekima, Avengement. Now when Reuben saith to Simeon, Lend me thy Hatchet: he answereth, I will not lend him: afterwards Simeon borroweth a Hatchet of Reuben: Reuben saith, lo, I will lend it thee, I will not deal with thee as thou dealedst with me, this is ‎‏נטירה‏‎ Netira, Mindfulness: both these were sinful, but not liable to mans judgment.

In all civil Courts, five sorts of persons were alwayes present. 1. Judges. 2. Officers. 3. Pleaders. 4. Notaries. 5. Witnesses. In the supreme Court, there was one that was chief over all the other Judges, they called him in Hebrew Nasi, in Greek ἄρχοντα, The Prince. His leave was craved for the tryal of actions. The Witnesses were at least two, Deut. 29. 15. If they were false, they punish’d them with a Talio, the same punishment which he intended against his brother, Deut. 19. 19. The Notaries were two,[532] one stood on the right hand to write the sentence of Absolution, and what was spoken in defence of the party; the other stood on the left hand, to write the sentence of condemnation, and the objections against the party. Drusius[533] thinks that Christ speaking of the last Judgment had reference to this, He shall set the sheep on the right hand, and on the left the goats, Matth. 25. 23. The Officers were in manner of Sheriffs, they were present to execute what the Judges determined; whence they carried up and down their staves and whips,[534] as the Consuls of Rome had Rod and Axes, carried before them for the readier execution of justice. In Hebrew they are called ‎‏שוטרים‏‎ Schoterim, by the Septuagint sometimes γραμματεῖς, in our English translation commonly Officers, and by Saint Luke πράκτορες: for, doubtless there is allusion unto them, Luke 12. 58. When thou goest with thine adversary, (ἄρχοντι) to the Magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou maist be delivered from him, lest he hale thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer, &c. The Pleader was called ‎‏בעל ריב‏‎ Baal rib, he stood on the right hand of the party cited into the Court, whether he pleaded for or against him. The Lord shall stand on the right hand of the poor, to save him from those that judge his soul, Psa. 109. 31. that is, The Lord shall plead his cause. And Satan stood at the right hand of Joshua, Zach. 3. 1. that is to accuse him, or plead against him. When S. John speaking, If any man sin, we have an Advocate, 1 John 2. 1. he alludeth unto this Baalrib, or Pleader. The Judges, they examined and determin’d matters and after examination, sentence was pronounced by the Judge in this manner: Tu N. justus, Tu. N. reus, Thou Simon art just: Thou Reuben art guilty: at the pronunciation of which the guilty person was dragged to the place of execution. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned, Ps. 109. 7. the Hebrew is, Let him go out wicked.

The manner of sentencing persons, varied in most Countries. The Jews by a simple pronunciation of sentence, both absolved men, and condemned them. The Romans[535] gave sentence by calling in Tables into a certain box or urne prepared for the purpose: if they absolved any, they wrote the letter A in the table, it being the first letter of Absolvo: if they would condemn any, they cast in a table with C written in it, which is the first letter of Condemno: if the matter were hard to determine, they would cast in other tables with N L, signifying Non Liquet. The Græcians[536] in like manner used three letters: Θ was a token of condemnation, which occasioned that of Persius.

Τ was a token of absolution; Α, of ampliation. Others signified condemnation, by giving a black stone; and absolution by giving a white stone.

To this there seemeth to be allusion, Rev. 2. 17. To him who overcometh I will give a white stone; that is, I will absolve and acquit him in the day of judgement.

Note these three phrases, ἀναστῆναι είς κρίσιν, To rise up to judgment; ἀναστῆναι ἐν κρίσει, To rise up in judgment; ἐξελθεῖν καταδεδικασμένος, To depart guilty. The first is applied to the Judge in the execution of Justice, When God rose up to Judge, Psalm 76. 10. that is, to execute judgement. The second is applied to the party prevailing in judgment. The men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgement with this generation, Mat. 12. 41. that is, shall be justified before this generation. The last is applied to the party condemned, Psal. 109. 7. Let him depart guilty or wicked: the ungodly shall not stand in judgment, Psal. 1. The like phrases were in use among the Romans, Stare in Senatu, to prevail in the Senate; Causa cadere, to be cast in ones suit. But these phrases among the Romans I think to have been taken out of their Fence-Schools, where the set posture of the body, by which a man prepareth himself to fight and grapple with his enemy, is termed Status, or Gradus, as cedere de Statu, to give back; Gradum vel statum servare, to keep one’s standing: and from thence have those elegancies been translated into places of Judgment.

CHAP. IV.
The number of their Civil Courts.

Their Civil Courts were two, ‎‏סנהדרים גדולה‏‎ Sanhedrim gedola, the great Consistory, or Supreme Senate, ‎‏סנהדרים קטנה‏‎ Sanhedrim Ketanna, the lesser and inferiour Court. Thus I find them divided generally by the Rabbins: And although the latter was subdivided, as will after appear; yet in old time there were onely two first branches: which division our Saviour Christ seemeth to have followed, calling the lesser Court κρίσιν, by the name of Judgement: the greater συνέδριον, by the name of a Counsel. Whosoever is angry with his brother unadvisedly, shall be culpable of Judgement. Whosoever saith unto his brother Raca, shall be worthy to be punished by the Counsel: Whosoever shall say Fool, shall be worthy to be punished with the fire of Gehenna, Mat. 5. 22. In which words, as there is a gradation of sin, 1. Anger, a passion of the mind. 2. Raca,[537] scornful, or slighting speech, as Tut, Tush, &c. 3. Fool, reproachful and opprobrious names: so likewise there is a gradation of punishment. 1. Judgement, a lesser Court. 2. Councel, the greater Court. 3. The fire of Gehenna: Now Gehenna was a Valley, terrible for two sorts of fires in it: First, for that wherein men burnt their children unto Moloch.[538] Secondly, for another fire there continually burning, to consume the dead carcasses, and filth of Jerusalem; partly for the terribleness of the first, and partly for the contemptibleness of the place by reason of the second fire, it was a type of hell fire it self. We may resolve that text thus, anger deserved the punishments of the lesser Court; Raca, the punishments of the greater: and Fool deserved punishments beyond all Courts, even the fire of Gehenna.

The greater Court, by way of excellency, was called the Sanhedrim, which word came from the Greek, συνέδριον, a place of Judgement: It was also called ‎‏בית דין‏‎ Beth din, the house of Judgment.[539] It was distinguished from the other Courts; first, in respect of the number of the Judges, which were seventy one, according to the command of God to Moses at their first institution, Numb. 11. 16. Gather unto me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, whom thou knowest that they are the Elders of the people, the Governours over them, and bring them unto the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and let them stand there with thee. From the latter words of this Text, it is observed, that there were seventy besides Moses; and therefore after his decease they alwaies chose one chief Judge in his room, not reckoning him among the seventy; they called him Nasi, the Prince or chief over the seventy. These seventy are thought[540] to be chosen six out of every Tribe, save the Tribe of Levi, out of which only four were chosen. Others think[541] the manner of their choice was thus; six of every Tribe had their names written in little scrolls of paper: in seventy of these scrolls was written ‎‏זקן‏‎ Zaken, Senex, an Elder, in the two other ‎‏חלק‏‎ Cheleck, pars, A part; these scrolls they put into a pitcher or urn, and those that pluck’d out a scroll wherein Elder was written, were counted amongst the number of the Judges; those that pluck’d out the other scrolls, in which a Part was written, they were rejected, Numb. 11. 26. The senior of these seventy was called ‎‏אב בית דין‏‎ Ab beth din, the Father of the Judgment Hall. The whole Set[542] or Bench of Judges, sate in manner of an half circle, the Nasi sitting in the midst above the rest, the other sitting round about beneath, in such manner that the Father of the Judgement Hall sate next to the Nasi on the right hand. The lesser Consistory was subdivided into two sorts, one consisted of twenty three Aldermen, and two such Consistories there were in Jerusalem, the one at the door of the Court before the Temple, the other at the door of the Mountain of the Temple: yea, in every City throughout Israel where there were sixscore housholders, such a Consistory was erected: the other sort of lesser Courts consisted only of a Triumvirate, three Aldermen; and this was erected in the lesser Cities, which had not the number of sixscore housholders.

The second difference[543] between the greater Consistory and the lesser, was in respect of the place. The seventy sate only at Jerusalem, within the Court of the Temple, in a certain house called ‎‏לשכת הגזית‏‎ Lischath hegazith, the paved Chamber, because of the curious cut stones wherewith it was paved: by the Greeks it was called λιθόστρωτον, the Pavement. Pilate sat down in the Judgement Seat, in a place called the Pavement, John 19. 13. The other Consistory sate all in the gates of the Cities. Now because the gates of the City are the strength thereof, and in their gates their Judges sate: Hence is that, Mat. 16. 18. The gates of Hell shall not overcome it, that is, neither the strength nor policy of Satan.

Lastly, they differed in respect of their Power and Authority: the Consistory of seventy received appeals from the other inferiour Courts,[544] from that there was no appeal: Again, the Consistory of three sate not on life and death, but onely on petty matters, as whipping, pecuniary controversies, and such like; the other of twenty three sate on life and death, but with a restrained power; they had not authority to judge an whole tribe, the High-priest, false Prophets, and other such weighty matters: this belonged only to the seventy in Jerusalem:[545] Hence is that, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the Prophets, Luk. 3. 34. The means how they tryed the false Prophet was thus; they observed the judgements which he threatned, and the good which he prophesied to a place: if the judgements took not effect, this did not argue him a false Prophet, because God was merciful, as in the case of Hezekiah, and the people might repent, as the Ninivites did: but if he prophesied good, and that came not to pass, they judged him a false Prophet. The ground of this tryal they make the words of Jeremiah the Prophet, which prophesied of peace when the word of the Lord shall come to pass, then shall the Prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him, Jer. 28. 9.