Samuel Miller on the Duties of Judges

Related to the prior post, the following are several quotes from American Puritan Samuel Miller's A Compleat Body of Divinity, specifically from the sermon on the duties of judges.

Quote:

Whether a judge is bound to execute a law, which he is convinced to be in itself unrighteous?

It would take up too much time to discuss it distinctly; all that I say is, they are to judge for God primar­ily; and he loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and we are told concerning such, Prov. 17:15, He that 

justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. And 

they that think such a man has two consciences, a public and a private, will find it a grand cheat one day,


Quote:

5.) He is to allow a fair hearing to all parties, whose cause comes before him. There are two sorts of 

causes which belong to the cognizance and determination of civil judicature, namely, matters criminal 

or capital; and matters of controversy between man and man. In either of these it is his duty to suffer the 

party accused to plead for himself, and bring whatsoever he can in his own defense, and have an ear open 

to him, as well as the accuser or plaintiff; and not to judge before he has heard what both sides have to 

allege for themselves, Acts 25:16. He ought therefore to show no manner of partiality during the trial, 

much less to become an attorney for the one against the other. Audi alteram partem [hear the other party 

also], was a saying frequently in the mouth of a pagan judge. And another could say, I have two ears, 

when I sit to hear any cause. In matters between the prince and the subject, he ought to let the subject 

have as full a hearing and with as much candor as him who pleads on the prince’s behalf; and in matters 

between man and man he is to give the poor as free audience as the rich, the mean as the noble man. Nor 

ought the plaintiff’s fair and plausible coloring of the matter, preoccupy or prejudice his judgment, much 

less determine it; but he must maintain as free and open a spirit to receive what the other has to bring in 

his own vindication. It is a vulgar speech and true, One man’s cause is good, till another be heard, and 

it agrees with that of the wise man, Prov. 18:17, He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his 

neighbor cometh and searcheth him. He ought not therefore to be frightened with hard words and men­acing, but entertained with greatest candor: thus did Joshua accost Achan, when he sat in judgment upon 

him; as Josh.


Quope:


6.) He ought to proceed in judgment, Secundum Allegata et Probata, that is, according to the nature of 

the things alleged, and the evidence which is produced, for the making of it a legal truth. And there are 

two things which do belong to this head.

(1.) The matter of fact must be legally proved. It is not enough that the person be accused, and mat­ters never so unjust alleged against him; but there must be evidence brought in against him, which 

shall according to righteousness make it to appear that it is, ad hominem [to the man], a plain and 

undeniable truth. If it were enough to accuse, who should be innocent? But in due proof, it stands 

a truth in law, nor will the denial of the other person invalidate it; for if it be enough to deny, who

should be guilty? Now the ordinary way to evidence things of fact in civil courts is by human testi­mony; though artificial arguments are of use; and here God has required, that in one case, there must 

be at least two witnesses, for the conviction of a person, or making a thing legally true.

As to that case,

Whether one witness will not suffice in some cases?

I answer in a word, that all cases are alike as to evidence, and God has wisely provided, that because 

one man’s credit is, of itself, as good as another’s in this point, there should be two witnesses, and 

therefore that law was moral which required this; that is, when there is nothing else to prove the mat­ter, and this must be to an individual fact.

As to the case,

How far the man’s own confession will convict him?

It may be replied, that the word of God allows it in some cases; but then the person must be clear, 

full and free in it; not evidently under the power of melancholy. And the civil law also well provides 

both that no confessions shall be extorted, and that the matter of fact confessed shall be notorious. 

Hence it is wholly unlawful to put any to the rack, to draw out a confession from them; because it is 

a fearful punishment, and a horrible injury to an innocent person; and such is the person in the ques­tion, till legally convicted, in the account of the law.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Rule of Men: The Basic Flaw in CREC Polity

It is a popular pastime among certain Reformed sectors and, on the other hand, “deconstructing” Christians to criticize the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, and Douglas Wilson in particular. As a long time reader of Wilson, and attender of a flagship CREC church for some time, I have my own criticisms of Wilson and the CREC. But, as an attorney, there is a central flaw not with Wilson or with Crec pastors generally, but with the CREC’s political structure. This problem, furthermore, has gone largely unrecognized, because it arises out of the basic governing documents of the denomination which, if you aren’t a lawyer or enthusiastic about ecclesiastical politics, are not exactly stimulating to read. That central problem—and I believe it is the problem behind a lot of the more obvious issues in the CREC—is that the denomination is fundamentally characterized by the rule of men and not the rule of law. In secular governments and most ecclesiastical governments, the governme...
Read more

Signs You are in a Church You should Leave

In the last few months, I have been thinking a lot about what the Bible requires for "official" accusations, whether in a church or in a secular court. I have posted on this recently. That has led to a related question: how can you tell if you're in an ecclesiastical environment where such Biblical requirements may not be respected?  (This assumes you have no significant ability to reform the situation—for example, you are not an elder, or have no significant positive influence over the elders, or, more cynically, have no significant monetary influence over what goes on in the church). The internet has many articles on this. I want to focus on two signs that are easy to spot for the average person. These are not so much particular actions, but rather long-term trends you should be able to spot if you attend a church long enough. 1. The first is an environment of secrecy. One major sign of secrecy is a reluctance or refusal to answer questions about certain topics, or to j...
Read more

The Law of Evidence in Seven Verses

Over approximately the past decade and a half, the idea of churches exercising more significant discipline over their members has gained traction among certain groups of Evangelicals. The most mainstream example is Jonathan Leeman, formerly of 9Marks, who has probably done the most to revitalize the topic in print in the last decade and a half. But church discipline has always been exercised in one form or another, particularly by small churches with well-defined and rigid boundaries. The locus classicus for church discipline is, of course, Matthew 18, which lays out a three step process for how church discipline ought be carried out. But Matthew 18, even if it is where we begin, cannot be where we end. For it is perfectly possible to “follow Matthew 18” while railroading an innocent party to a completely unjust result. Where can we go to discover what makes the process of church discipline a just one, worthy of acceptation? Another requirement that is often cited, but that is ...
Read more