The Ruling Elder

by Samuel Miller

CHAPTER II.

TESTIMONY FROM THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

It is impossible fully to understand either the spirit, the facts, or the nomenclature of the New Testament, without going back to the Old. The Christian religion is founded upon that of the Jews; or rather is the completion of it. The latter was the infancy and adolescence of that body of which the former is the manhood. And it is remarkable, that no class of theologians more strenuously contend for the connexion between the Jewish and Christian economics, and the impracticability of taking intelligent views of the one, without some previous knowledge of the other, than most of those who deny the apostolic origin of the class of officers now under consideration. With all such persons, then, we join issue, And, as a very large part of the titles and functions of ecclesiastical officers were, evidently, transmitted from the ceremonial to the spiritual economy, it is indispensably necessary, in order fully to understand their character, to go back to their source.

The term Elder, corresponding with ZQN, in Hebrew, and presbuteros, in Greek, literally signifies an aged person. Among the Jews, and the eastern nations generally, persons advanced in life were commonly selected to fill stations of dignity and authority, because they were supposed to possess most wisdom, gravity, prudence and experience. From this circumstance, the term Elder, became, in process of time, and by a natural association of ideas, an established title of office. [1] Accordingly, the Jews gave this title to most of their offices, civil as well as ecclesiastical, long before Synagogues were established. From the time of Moses, they had Elders over the nation, as well as over every city and smaller community. These are repeatedly represented as inspectors, and rulers of the people; as "officers set over them;" and, indeed, throughout their history, there is every reason to believe that the body of the people never, themselves, exercised governmental acts; but chose their Elders, to whom all the details of judicial and executive authority, under their Divine Legislator and Sovereign, were constantly committed.

The following specimen of the representation given on this subject, in various parts of the Old Testament, will suffice, at once to illustrate and establish what is here advanced. Even while the children of Israel in Egypt, they seem to have had Elders, in the official sense of the word; for Jehovah in sending Moses to deliver them, said, Go, and gather the Elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord hath visited you, and hath seen what is done to you in Egypt; Exodus iii. 16. In the wilderness, the Elders of Israel are spoken of as called together by Moses, appealed to by Moses, and officially acting under that divinely commissioned leader, on occasions almost innumerable. These Elders appear to have been of different grades, and endowed, of course, with different powers; Exod. xvii. 5. xviii. 12. xxiv. 1, 9. Numbers xi. 16. Deut. xxv. 7-9. xxix. 10. xxxi. 9, 28. From these and other passages, it would seem, they had seventy Elders over the nation and besides these, Elders over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens, who were all charged with inspection and rule in their respective spheres. Again, we find inspectors and rulers of the people, under the name of Elders, existing, and on all public occasions, acting in their official character, in the time of Joshua; during the period of the judges; under the kings, especially during the most favored and happy season of their kingly dominion; probably during the captivity in Babylon; and, beyond all doubt, as soon as they returned from captivity, and became settled in their own land; until the Synagogue system was regularly established as the stated means of popular instruction and worship.

When the Synagogue service was instituted, is a question which has been so much controverted, and is of so much real uncertainty that the discussion of it will not be attempted in this place, especially as it is a question of no sort of importance in the inquiry now before us. All that it is necessary for us to assume, is that it existed, at the time of our Lord's advent, and for a considerable time before; and that the Jews had been long accustomed to its order and worship; which no one, it is presumed, will think of questioning. Now, whatever might have been its origin, nothing can be more certain, than that, from the earliest notices we have of the institution. and through its whole history, its leading officers consisted of a bench of Elders, who were appointed to bear rule in the congregation; who formed a kind of Consistory, or ecclesiastical judicatory;-to receive applicants for admission into the Church; to watch over the people, as well in reference to their morals as their obedience to ceremonial and ecclesiastical order: to administer discipline when necessary; and, in short, as the representatives of the Church or congregation, to act in their name and behalf; to "bind," and "loose;" and to see that every thing was "done decently and in order."

It is not forgotten that a few eminent writers, following the celebrated German errorist, Erastus, have contended that there was no ecclesiastical government among the Jews distinct from the civil; and that, of course, there were no rulers of the Synagogue, separate from the civil judges. Those who wish to see this error satisfactorily refuted, and the existence of a distinct ecclesiastical government among that people clearly established, may consult what has been written on the subject, by the learned Gillespie,[1] by professor Rutherford,[3] by Bishop Stillingfleet, [4] and others; from whose writings they will be convinced, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the civil and ecclesiastical judicatories were really distinct: that the persons composing each, as well as their respective spheres of judgment were peculiar; and that the latter existed long after the civil sovereignty of the Jewish people was taken away.

There has been, indeed, much diversity of opinion among learned men, concerning a variety of questions which arise in reference to these Elders of the Synagogue. As, for example, whether there was a difference of rank among them? Whether some were teachers as well as rulers, and others rulers only? Whether there was any diversity in their ordination, &c., &c.? But while eminent writers on Jewish antiquities have differed and continue to differ in relation to these points, they are all perfectly agreed in one point, namely, that in every Synagogue there was a bench of Elders, consisting of at least three persons, who were charged with the whole inspection, government, and discipline of the Synagogue; who, as a court or bench of rulers, received, judged, censured, excluded, and, in a word, performed every judicial act, necessary to the regularity and welfare of the congregation. In this general fact, Vitringa, Selden, Voetius, Marck, Grotius, Lightfoot, Blondel, Salmasius, and, indeed, so far as I can now recollect, all the writers on this subject, who deserve to be represented as high authorities, substantially agree. And in support of this fact, they quote Philo, Josephus,-, Maimonides, Benjamin of Tudela, and the great mass of other Jewish witnesses, who are considered as holding the first rank among Rabbinical authorities. Indeed, they speak of the fact as too unquestionable to demand any formal array of testimony for its confirmation. [5]

Accordingly, we find various passages in the New Testament history, which refer to these Ruling Elders as belonging to the old economy, then drawing to a close, and which admit, it would appear, of no other interpretation than that which supposes their existence. The following specimen will suffice; Mark, v. 22. And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the Synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him he fell at his feet; Acts xiii. 15. And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them, saying, ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. On this latter passage, Dr. Gill, an eminent master of oriental, and especially of rabbinical learning, in his Commentary, writes thus:-"The rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them: that is, those who were the principal men in the Synagogue; the Ruler of it, together with the Elders; for there was but one Ruler in a Synagogue, though there were more Elders; and so the Syriac version here renders it, the Elders of the Synagogue." By this language, as I understand the Doctor, he does not mean to intimate that, the other Elders of whom he here speaks, did not bear rule in the Synagogue; but that there was only one, who, by way of eminence, was called, "the Ruler of the Synagogue;" that is, who presided at their meetings for official business. It is plain, however, that, even in this assertion, he is in some degree in error; for more than once we find a plurality of persons in single Synagogues spoken of as "Rulers."

The learned Vitringa, who, undoubtedly, is entitled to a very high place in the list of authorities on this subject, is of the opinion, that all who occupied a place with the bench of Elders in the Synagogue, were of one and the same rank or order; that they all received one and the same ordination; and were, of course, equally authorised to preach, when duty or inclination called them to this part of the public service, as well as to rule. And in this opinion he is joined by some others, whose judgment is worthy of the highest respect. But, at the same time, this eminent man freely grants, that a majority of the Elders of the Synagogue were not, in fact, ordinarily employed in teaching or preaching; that this part of the public service was principally under the direction of the Chief Ruler, or Head of each Synagogue, who attended to it himself; or called on one of the other Elders, or even any other learned Doctor who might be present,, and who was deemed capable of addressing the people in an instructive and acceptable manner; and that the chief business of the mass of the Elders was TO RULE. [6] The correctness of this opinion has been questioned. A number of other writers, quite his equals, both in talents and learning, and especially quite as conversant with Jewish authorities, have maintained, that a majority of the Elders in the Synagogue were neither chosen nor set apart to the function of teaching, but to that of ruling only. But, in the want of absolute certainty which exists on this subject, and for the sake of argument, I am willing to acquiesce in Vitringa's opinion. Suppose it to have been as he alleges:-This is quite sufficient for our purpose. If it be conceded, that there was, in every Synagogue, a bench of Elders, who, as a judicial body, were entrusted with the whole government and discipline of the congregation:-that a majority of these Elders seldom or never preached, but were, in fact (whatever right they might have had) chiefly occupied as ecclesiastical rulers; and that all ecclesiastical matters, instead of being discussed and decided by the congregation at large, were constantly committed to the judicial deliberation and decision of this Eldership; if these things be granted-and they are granted, in substance, by every writer, entitled to be referred to as an authority, with whom I am acquainted;-it is all that can be considered as material to the purpose of our argument. This will appear more fully in the sequel.

These officers of the Synagogue were called by different names as we learn from the New Testament, and from the most respectable Jewish authorities. The most common and familiar name, perhaps, was that of Elders, as before stated at large. They were also called Rulers of the Synagogue; a title of frequent occurrence in. the New Testament, as applied to the whole bench of the Elders in question; but which would seem, from some passages, to have been, at least, sometimes applied, by way of eminence, to the principal ruler in each Synagogue, which principal ruler appears, however. io have been of the same general rank, or order, with the rest, and to have had no other precedence than that which consisted in presiding and taking the lead in the public service. These officers were, further called Heads of the Synagogue;-Overseers, or Bishops;-Presidents;-Orderers, or Regulators of the affairs of the Synagogue;-Guides, &c. &c. These titles are given at length by Vitringa, [7] Selden, [8] and others, with the original vouchers and exemplifications of each; showing that they all imply bearing rule, as well as the enjoyment of pre-eminence and dignity.

And, as these Elders were distinguished from the common members of the Synagogue by appropriate titles, indicating official honor and power; so they had also distinct and honorable seats assioned them , when the congregation over which they ruled was convened. The place of sitting usually appropriated to them, was a semi-circular bench, in the middle of which the chief ruler was placed, and his colleagues on each side of him, with their faces toward the assembly, and in a certain position with respect to the Ark, the principal Door, and the cardinal points of the compass. This statement is confirmed by the learned Thorndike, a distinguished Episcopal divine, of the 17th century. In speaking of tl-ie Consistory, or bench of Elders, in the Synagogue, and describing their manner of sitting in public worship, he makes the following statement, in the form of a quotation from Maimonides, and confirms it abundantly from other sources. "How sit the people in the Synagogue? The Elders sit with their faces towards the people, and their backs towards the Hecall (the place where they lay the copy of the law;) and all the people sit rank before rank, the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it; so the faces of all the people are towards the Sanctuary and towards the Elders, and towards the Ark; and when the Minister of the Synagogue standeth up to prayer, he standeth on the ground before the Ark, with his face toward the sanctuary, as the rest of the people." [9]

The number of the Elders in each Synagogue was not governed by any absolute rule. In large cities, according to certain Jewish authorities quoted by Vitringa the number was frequently very large. But even in the smallest synagogue, we are assured,, as mentioned in a former page, that there were never less than three that the judicatory might never be equally divided.

Such were the arrangements for maintaining purity and order in the Synagogues, or parish churches of the old economy, anterior to the advent of the Messiah. It would seem to be impossible for any one to contemplate this statement, so amply supported by all sound authority, without recognising, a striking likeness to the arrangements afterwards adopted in the New Testament Church. That this likeness is real, and has been maintained by some of the ablest writers on the subject, the following short extracts will sufficiently establish.

The first quotation shall be taken from Bishop Burnet. "Among the Jews," says he, "he who was the chief of the Synagogue was called Chazan Hakeneseth, that is, the Bishop of the Congregation, and Sheliach Tsibbor, the Angel of the Church. And the Christian Church being modelled as near the form of the Synagogue as could be, as they retained many of the rites, so the forin of their government was continued, and the names remained the same," And again; "In the Synagogues there was, first, one that was called the Bishop of the Congregation. Next the three Orderers and Judges of every thing about the Synagogue, who were called Tsekenim, and by the Greeks, presbuteroi or yeronte¸. These ordered and determined every thing that concerned the Synagogue, or the persons in it. Next to them,. were the three Parnassin, or Deacons whose charge was to gatber the collections of the rich and to distribute them to the poor. The term Elder, was generally given to all their Judges: but chiefly to those of the great Sanhedrim. So we have it Matt. 16. 21. Mark 8. 31. 14. 43. & 15. 1, and Acts 23.14." "A great deal might be said to prove that the Apostles, in their first constitutions, took things as they had been modelled to their hand in the Synagogue. And this they did, both because it was not their design to innovate, except where the nature of the Gospel dispensation obliged them to do it:-As also, because, they took all means possible to gain the Jews, who we, find were zealous adherers to the traditions of their fathers, and not easily weaned from those precepts of Moses which by Christ's death were evacuated. And if the Apostles went so great a length in complying with them in greater matters, as circumcision and other legal observances, (which appears from the Acts and Epistles,) we have good grounds to suppose that they would have yielded to them in what was more innocent and less important. Besides, there appears, both in our Lord himself, and in his Apostles, a great inclination to symbolize with them as far as was possible. Now the nature of the Christian worship shows evidently, that it came in the room of the Synagogue, which was moral, and not of the temple worship, which was typical and ceremonial. Likewise this parity of customs betwixt the Jews and Christians, was such that it made them taken by the Romans, and other more overly observers for one sect of religion. And, finally, any that will impartially read the New testament, will find that when the forms of government or worship are treated of, it is not done with such architectonal exactness, as was necessary, if a new thing had been instituted, which we find practised by Moses. But the Apostles rather speak as those who give rules for the ordering and directing of what was already in being. From all which it seems well grounded and rational to assume, that the first constitution of the Christian Churches was taken from the model of the Synagogue, in which these Elders were separated, for the discharge of their employments, by an imposition of hands, as all Jewish writers do clearly witness." [10]

The second testimony shall be that of the Rev Dr. Thomas Godwin, an English divine of great erudition, especially in oriental learning. In his well known work, entitled "Moses and Aaron," we find the following passage:-"There were in Israel distinct, Courts, consisting of distinct persons; the one principally for church business; the other for affairs in ther commonwealth:-the, one an ecclesiastical Coitsistory; the other a civil Judicatory.-The secular Consistory was named a Sanhedrim, or Council; the spiritual, a Synagogue. The office of the ecclesiastical court was to put a difference between things holy and unholy, and to determine appeals in controversies of difficulty. It was a representative Church. Hence is that, Dic Ecclesioe; Matt. 18, 16. [11]

The next question shall be taken from Dr. Lightfoot, another Episcopal divine, still more distinguished, for his oriental and rabbinical learning. "The Apostle," says he, "calleth the minister Episcopus, or (Bishop,) from the common and known title of the Chazan or Overseer in the Synagogue." And again;-"Besides these, there was the public minister of the Synagogue, who prayed publicly, and took care about reading the law, and sometimes preached, if there were not some other to discharge this office. This person. was called, rwkyu xylv, the angel of the Church, and tmnkh Nzx the Chazan, or Bishop of the congregation. The Aruch gives the reason of the name. The Chazan says he, is dbyu xylv the angel of the Church, (or the public minister,) and the Targum renders the word hawr by the word hzwt, one that oversees. For it is incumbent on him to oversee how the reader reads, and whom he may call out to read in the law. The public Minister of the Synagogue Himself read not the law publicly; but every Sabbath he called out seven of the Synagogue (on other days fewer) who he judged fit to read. He stood by him, that read, with great care, observing that he read nothing either falsely or improperly, and called him back, and correcting him, if he had failed in any thing. And hence he was called Chazan, that is, Episkopos, Bishop, or Overseer. Certtinly the signification of the words Bishop and Angel of the Church, had been determined with less noise, if recourse had been had to the proper fountains, and men had not vainly disputed about the signification of words taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted the worship and public adoration of God used in the Synagogues, which was moral, into the Christian Church; viz: the public ministry, public prayers, reading God's Word, and preaching, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the gospel were the very same, the Angel of the Church, and the Bishop, which belonged to the Ministers in the Synagogues. "There was in every Synagogue, a bench of three. This bench consisted of three Elders, rightly and by imposition of hands preferred to the Eldership." "There were also three Deacom, or, Almoners, on which was the care of the poor." [12]

In another place, the same learned Orientalist, says-describing the worship in the Jewish Synagogue:-" In the body of the Church the congregation met, and prayed and heard the law, and the manner of their sitting was this-The Elders sat near the Chancel, with their faces down the Church: and the people sat one form behind another, with their faces up the Church, toward the Chancel and the Elders.-Of these Elders there were some that had rule and office in the Synagogue, and some that had not. And this distinetion the Apostle seemeth to allude unto, in that much disputed text, 1 Tim. v. 18. The Elders that rule well, &c.; where `the Elders that ruled well' are set not only in opposition to those that ruled ill, but to those that ruled not at all.-We may see, then, whence these titles and epithets in the New Testament are taken, namely, from the common platform and constitution of the Synagogues, where Angelus Ecclesioe, and Episcopus were terms of so ordinary use and knowledge. And we may observe from whence the Apostle taketh his expressions, when he speaketh of some Elders ruling, and laboring in word and doctrine, and some not; namely, from the same platform and constitution of the Synagogue, where `the Ruler of the Synagogue' was more singularly for ruling the affairs of the Synagogue, and `the minister of the Congregation,' laboring in the word, and reading the law, and in doctrine about the preaching of it. Both these together are sometimes called jointly, `the Rulers of the Synagogue;' Acts xiii, 15.; Mark v. 22.; being both Elders that ruled; but the title is more singularlygiven to the first of them." [13]

Again, he says:-"In all the Jew's Synagogues there were Parnasin, Deacons, or such as had care of the poor, whose work it was to gather alms for them from the congregation, and to distribute it to them. That needful office is here (Acts vi.) translated into the, Christian Church. [14]

The fourth quotation sball be taken from Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Stillingfleet, who, in his Irenicum, maintains a similar position with confidence and zeal. the following is a specimen of his language:-"That which we lay, then, as a foundation, whereby to clear what apostolical practice was, is that the Apostles, in forming Churches, did observe the customs of the Jewish Synagogue." [15] And in support of this position, particularly in reference to the Eldership of the Synagogue, he quotes a large number of the most distinguished writers, both Jewish and Christian. It is due to candor, indeed, to state, that Stillingfleet does not admit that any of the Elders, either of the Synagogue, or of the primitive Church, were lay-Elders, but thinks they were all invested with some kind of clerical character. This, however, as before remarked, does not at all affect the value of his testimony to the general fact, that, in every Synagogue there was a Consistory, or Judicatory, of Elders-and that the same class of officers was adopted, both name and thing, in the apostolic Church, which he unequivocally asserts and proves.

In the same general doctrine, Grotius and Salmasius of Holland, decisively concur. By Grotius, the following strong and unqualified language is used:-"The whole polity, or order (regimen) of the Churches of Christ, was conformed to the model of the Jewish Synagogue." And again; speaking of ordination by the imposition of hands, he says:-This method was observed in setting apart the Rulers and Elders of the Synagogue; and thence the custom passed into the Christian Church." [16] Salmasius also, and other writers, of equally profound learning, might be quoted as unequivocally deciding, that the Synagogue had a bench of Ruling Elders, and that a similar bench, after that model, was constituted in the Christian Church. Especially, he contends that the Elders of the Church were, beyond all doubt, taken from the Eldership in the Synagogue. [17]

The learned Spencer, a divine of the Church of England, in the seventeenth century, teaches the same general doctine, when he says:-It The Apostles, also, that this reformation (the change from the Old to the New Testament dispensation) might proceed gently, and without noise, received into the Christian Church many of those institutions which had been long in use among the Jews. Among the number of these may be reckoned, the imposition of hands; bishops, elders, and deacons; excommunication, ordination, and other things familiar to learned men." [18]

The Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke, whose eminent learning, no competent judge will question, also bears testimony that in every Jewish Synagogue, at the time of the coming of Christ, and before, there was an ecclesiastical judicatory, or little Court, whose duty it was to conduct the spiritual government of each congregation. Among several places in which he makes this statement, the following is decisive:-"In his Commentary on James ii. 2, he says:-"In ancient times petty courts of judicature were held in the Synagogue;,;, as Vitringa has sufficiently proved, De Vet. Syn. 1. 3.; and it is probable that the case here adduced was one of a judicial kind; where of the two parties, one was rich, and the other poor; and the master or ruler of the Synagogue, or he who presided in this court, paid particular deference to the rich man, and neglected the poor person; though as plaintiff and defendant, they were equal in the eye of justice."

I shall cite on this subject only one more authority; that of the celebrated Augustus Neander, Professor in the University of Berlin, and generally considered as, perhaps, more profoundly skilled in Christian antiquities, than any other man now living. He is, moreover, a Minister of the Lutheran Church, and, of course, has no sectarian spirit to gratify in vindicating Presbyterianism. And, what is not unworthy of notice, being himself of Jewish extraction, he has enjoyed the highest advantages for exploring the peculiar polity of that people. After showing at some length, that the government of the primitive Church was not monarchical or prelatical, but dictated throughout by a spirit of mutual love, counsel, and prayer, he goes on to express himself thus: "We may suppose that where any thing could be found in the way of Church forms, which was consistent with this spirit, it would be willingly appropriated by the Christian community. Now there happened to be in the Jewish Synagogue, a system of government of this nature; not monarchical, but rather aristocratical (or a government of the most venerable and excellent.) A council of Elders, oynqz presbuteroi, conducted all the affairs of that body. It seemed most natural that Christianity, developing itself from the Jewish religion, should take this form of government. This form must also have appeared natural and appropriate to the Roman citizens, since their nation had, from the earliest times, been, to some extent, under the control of a Senate, composed of Senators, or Elders. When the Church was placed under a council of Elders, they did not always happen to be the oldest in reference to years; but the term expressive of age here, was, as in the Latin Senatus, and in the Greek gerousia, expressive of worth or merit. Besides the common name of these overseers of the Church, to wit, rresbuteroi, there were many other names given, according to the peculiar situation occupied by the individual, or rather his peculiar field of labor; as poimene¸, shepherds; hgoumenoi leaders; proestwte¸ twn adelfwn, rulers of the brethren; and episkopoi, overseers." [19]

Now, if, in the ancient Jewish Synagogue, the government of the congregation was not vested, either in the people at large, or in any single individual but in a bench of Elders; if this is acknowledged on all hands, as one of the clearest and most indubitable facts in Jewish antiquity;-and if, in the judgment of the most learned and pious divines that ever lived, both episcopal and non-episcopal, the New Testament Church was formed after the model of the Jewish Synagogue, and not after the pattern of the temple service;-we may, of course, expect to find some evidence of this in the history of the apostolic Churches. How far this expectation is realized, will be seen in the next chapter.

FOOTNOTES

1. It has often been remarked, that the ancient official use of the word, as implying wisdom and experience, is still preserved in many modern languages, in which Seigneur, Signior, Senator, and other similar words, are used to express both dignity and authority. It is evident that all these words, and some others which might be mentioned, are derivatives from the Latin word, Senior. It is no less plain, that the title of the Magistrates of Cities and Boroughs, who are called Aldermen or Eldermen, is from the same origin with our modern term Elder. Many of the titles of respect, both in the Eastern and Western world, were it proper to take time for the purpose, might be traced beyond all doubt to a similar source. [back]

2. Aaron's Rod, &c. Lond. 4to. 1646. [back]

3. Divine Right of Church Government, &c. London. 4to. 1646. [back]

4. Irenicum. Part 2. Chapter 6. [back]

5. When the unanimous agreement of these learned writers is asserted, it is not meant to be alleged that they all entertain the same views of the Elders of the Synagogue, as to all particulars; but simply that they all unite in maintaining that there was, in every Synagogue, such a bench of Elders, who conducted its discipline, and managed its affairs. [back]

6. De Synagoga Vetere. Lib. iii. Par. i. Cap. 7. [back]

7 De Synagoga Vetere. Lib. iii. Par. i. Cap. 1, 2, 3. [back]

8. Discourse of the Service of God in Religious Assemblies. Chap. 3. p. 56. [back]

9. De Synedriis -- passim. [back]

10. Observations on the First and Second Canons, &c. p. 2, 83, 84, 85. Glasgow. 12mo. 1673. [back]

11. Moses and Aaron, Book 5, chapter i. [back]

12. Lightfoot's Works, Vol. 1. p. 308. Vol. ii. p. 133, 755.[back]

13. Ibid. i. 611, 612. [back]

14. Ibid. i. 279. [back]

15. Irenicum. Part 2. Chapter 6. [back]

16. Grotii Annotationes in Act. Apost. vi. xi. [back]

17. De Primatu Papoe. cap. i. [back]

18. De Legibus Hebraeorum, Lib. iii. Dissert. 1. Cap. 2. sect. 4. [back]

19. Kirchengeschichte, Vol. i. p. 283, 285. [back]



Go back to The Ruling Elder Index.
Go back to BOOKS page
Return to CRTA