A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Chapter 5 · Section 14
Sect. 14. The Kings Supremacy is such as was allowed the Kings of Israel.
He ends this Chapter thus. If it be said, Object. 2. That the Kings of Israel were the Heads successively, of the then Church; and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful. We answer, 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel, there is a vast disproportion; many things were lawful in that day, which to do, or subject to now, were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh. 2. The Kings of Israel were types of Christ. 3. That the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church, is false. God was its alone Head and King. Hence their Historian saith, their Government was foreign, and when they would needs chuse a King, God said, they rejected him to whom even as to their political Head, a Sicle was paid yearly as a Tribute, called, The Sicle of the Sanctuary. True indeed, as they were a political Body, they had visible Political Governours, who when they ceased, their Policy was at an end; but that these had any Headship over them to make any Laws, introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship, will never be proved.
Answ. 1. That there is any such disproportion between the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel, as makes the same power, which the Kings of Israel exercised lawfully, to be now unlawful to the Kings of England, is falsely and vainly asserted; sith there is nothing therein ceremonial and temporary, peculiar to the Jewish Oeconomy, as appears in that all Nations have ascribed to their chief Rulers dominion about things sacred, as is proved by me in the Assertion of the fifth Proposition in my Book of the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, from that which is ascribed to Cyrus, Isa. 44.28. and 45.1. to the King of Niniveh, Jon. 3.7, 8. and others, Ezra 6.7, &c. and 7.13. &c. Dan. 3.29. & 6.26. and that Christianity alters not civil relations or Estates, 1 Cor, 7.24. Parents and Masters have the like power, Ephes. 6.4, 5. Gen. 35.2, 4. which things are more fully vindicated by Mr. Selden in his first Book De Syned. Hugo Grotius in his Book De Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, and others. 2. It is true, that David is made a type of Christ, but that all the Kings of Judah, much less, that all the Kings of Israel are made types of Christ; or that Christ alone was to have that power which they used, or that the Kingly Power used by them, ceased upon the coming of Christ in the flesh, are all most palpably false; sith the Scriptures of the New Testament do plentifully assert the Dominion of Civil Powers, and our Lord Christ himself, and his Apostles yielded subjection to them. 3. That the Church of Israel was different from the Kingdom or people of Israel, is one of the Placita or proper opinions of those who would establish from that example an Ecclesiastical Independent Government in the Church distinct from the Civil Government of the State. But neither the arguments of Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming, Book 1. c. 3. nor any other I have met with, convince me that it was so. Sure both David and Solomon, and other Kings did exercise power over Ecclesiastical persons, as in deposing Abiathar; and in Ecclesiastical things, about keeping the Passover, 2 Chron. 29.30. & 30.2. and many other things, which were approved by God, being related in the holy Story without reproof, as arguments of their integrity. And therefore if the Kings of Israel were, as it is said of Saul, 1 Sam. 15.17. heads of the tribes of Israel, they were also heads of the Church of Israel, being Governours of the same persons, whether of the tribe of Levi, or of other tribes, and about the same things, to wit, those of the Worship of God, though they were not to meddle with the peculiar Ministry of the Priests and Levites. It is true, that God alone was the Head and King of the Church of Israel in some sense. He was their sole, supreme, absolute King, that had power Legislative to assign what Faith, Worship, Judicatories, and what other things were necessary for that Congregation, originally and of himself de jure communi, of right common to all Nations, as their Creatour; and de jure speciali, out of right peculiar to that people, as being brought forth out of the Land of Egypt, Lev. 25.55. and being joyned in Covenant with him, were not to set up a King over them without his appointment; and de facto, he was actually their sole King (till the people weary of Samuels Government, because of his sons iniquity, and out of fear of Nahash King of the Ammonites, desired a King as other Nations) because Moses, Joshuah, and all the Judges were immediately chosen by God, and raised up extraordinarily for a time to do special services without ordinary succession; and accordingly acted and ruled by extraordinary immediate motions and revelations from God; in which respects the Government of the Israelites before Sauls reign, was not unfitly termed by Josephus foreign, Gods rule; and when they would needs chuse a King, or have Samuel to make them a King to judge them like all the Nations, 1 Sam. 8.5, 19, 20. God said they rejected him, that he should not reign over them, v. 17. where the desire of having a King is not simply condemned as unlawful, nor because they desired a K…ng over the Church as such; as if they might lawfully enough have desired a King over them as a political Head, but not as Head of the Church as such; for neither is there any intimation of any such limitation of their desire; but on the contrary, they desired that they might also be like all the Nations, and that their King might judge them, and go out before them and fight their Battels, 1 Sam. 18.20. Nor is there the least hint of any reprehension of their desire, that they would have a King over them, as a Church, to appoint them Religion and Worship as other people; neither was it spoken that they rejected God, as though the Lord did not reign where there is set up a Monarchical Government; for it is Gods Ordinance, and Kings have their power and authority from him, according to that, Prov. 8.15, 16. By me Kings reign, and Princes decree justice, &c. and they are his Deputies and Lieutenants, by whom he ruleth. In which regard the people might have lawfully desired a King, if they had done it with upright hearts o… lawful grounds to good and warrantable ends, in a right manner, and in due time For the Lord had promised, that when they were settled in the Land of Canaan, he would (when he thought good) set a King over them, out of whose loyns the Messiah should come, and also sheweth how he would have him qualified, and what he required of him, Deut. 17.17, 18. and he had promised unto Abraham, that Kings should come out of him, Gen. 17.6. And Jacob in his prophetical blessing saith, That the Scepter should not depart from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh did come, i. e. the Messias, Gen 49.10. And David speaking of himself as a type of Christ, saith Psal. 2.6. Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. And therefore this is not simply condemned as a sin in it self to desire a King; but because they did it with an ill mind, affecting innovation, as being weary of Gods Government which he had established, till himself pleased to change it; and in a pr…posterous and tumultuous manner, before he had given any intimation of his pleasure, and to a wrong and evil end, that they might be like to the Heathen Nations; and out of their confidence in a King, as able to protect them; and their diffidence in God, as insufficient to defend them in his own way, unless he would be directed in a course of their prescribing; and finally, because they would not wait upon him for the accomplishment of his word in his own due time, but with all importunity press him to do at their own pleasure. Thus the Assembly Annotations. Whence the impertinency of the allegation of this Text either against Kingly Government, or their Headship over the Church is manifested. No… is it more to the purpose which is added, that to God even as to their political Head, a sicle was paid yearly as a tribute, called the sicle of the sanctuary. For 1. If this payment be meant of that which is mentioned, Exod. 30.12, 13, 14, 15, 16. it doth not appear by the Text, that it was a yearly tribute paid to God as their political Head; but a Tax put on them when Moses took the summ of the children of Israel after their number, then they should give every man a ransome for his soul unto the Lord when he numbred them, that there might be no Plague among them; half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary, the offering of the Lord to make an attonement for the souls, which he was to appoint for the service of the tabernacle of the Congregation, that it might be a memorial unto the children of Israel. But if it be yielded that it was after made a yearly tribute, as the Jewish Doctors say, and a perpetual Ordinance according to what Mr. Ainsworth on Exod. 30 16. out of Maimony cites, and that it continued so till the destruction of Jerusalem, as Josephus relates in Book 7. ch. 28. of the Jewish War; yet this proves not, that it was paid to God under that notion as to their political Head. It is true, that the tribute or custome called Didrachma, that is, shekels mentioned Mat. 17.24, 25. is conceived by very many learned men to be that which was paid to the Lord for the use of the Temple as a tribute to him; which is largely argued by Cameron in his praelections on that Text, with whom Diodate, Hugo Grotius, Dr. Hammond concurr; and before them Hilarius cited by Maldonat, who thinks it was paid to the Romans, and cites Hierome, Bede, and of this mind are many others, as Beza, Piscator, Pareus. But if Camerons opinion were certain, yet it may seem rather to be paid to God as Head of the Church, then as a political Head, as this Author speaks; sith it was paid for the service of the Temple. 2. Were that which this Author saith, granted him, it should rather se…ve against him than for him. For if it were paid to God as their Political Head, it rather proves God to be the alone political Head, and so against that which he saith, [true indeed, as they were a political Body, they had visible, political Governours, who when they ceased, their policy was at an end] than that God was the Churches alone Head and King, and that it is false that the Kings of Israel were Heads of the Church; and therefore his sayings do interfer: That the Kings of Israel had a Headship over them to make Laws, introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship, is conceived to be proved from 2 Chron. 20.3, 21. & 29.27. & 30.1, 2, 4, 5, 23. & 31.2, 3. with many more, which I find not yet to be enervated by the Answers I have met with. I proceed to examine that which follows.