The Casting Down of the Last and Strongest Hold of Satan, Treatise · Chapter 1 · Thesis 13
13. THESIS.
As for that which is commonly ſaid by the Patrons of Tol… ration, that what the Iudges, Magiſtrates, Kings of Iſrael and Iudah, did in a coer…ive way in matters of Religion in Iſrael and Iudah, they did it not by vertue of their office as ordinary Kings and Magiſtrates towards their ſubjects, but as Kings in a peculiar and extraordinary notion, as typicall Kings, types of Chriſt the King of the Church, executing typically his kingly office, the people alſo and the very Land over which they ruled, being typicall, which no Kings not people under heaven at this day are, and that therefore their practiſes cannot be drawn into example by any Chriſtian Magiſtrates now. I deſire the Reader well to obſerve theſe following anſwers, and the rather becauſe the maine ſtrength of the Sectaries diſcourſe upon this ſubject hangs by this ſtring, and this thred runs all along throughout their works. M. S. the Bloudy Tenet, The Antient bounds or Liberty of Conſcience ſtated, The Storming of Antichriſt with many others place all their confidence here, and this is their Sheild and buckler, making much uſe of this typicalneſſe under the Old Teſtament to evade all the inſtances of Kings and Magiſtrates brought from thence.
Firſt, to make this good, there are ſome things ſuppoſed or aſſerted for proof very uncertain, doubtfull, other things abſurd and untrue; As firſt, that to be a Type of Chriſt is a ſufficient ground of a Politicall Civill power over the Church, and that typicalneſſe, qua, typicalneſſe gives thoſe perſo…s a power, who otherwiſe have none;Secondly, becauſe it ha… no influence upon civill authority; of which ſee a…or… there. the contrary unto which is in ſeverall Reaſons proved by Doctor*Firſt then the Prieſts & ſome Prophets as Ionah ſhould have had this power: yea Adam, Iſaac, &c. for they were all types of Chriſt. Stewart in the ſecond part of his Duply to M. S. page 22. and never yet anſwered by M. S. or any other, though M. S. and many of his Brethren have written upon that argument ſince.
Secondly,zThe … b…unds or Liberty of conſti… ſtated. p. … that he who was Head of the State was Head alſo of the Church in a typicall way, whereas many great Divines are of another judgement, and ſhow that the Kings of Judah and the civill judicatures were formally diſtinct from the Eccleſiaſticall, and that he who was cheif in the State over civill matters, was not cheif Iudge and Officer in the Church in an Eccleſiaſticall and Spirituall notion, of which point Maſter R…herford and Maſter Gil…eſpie having written ſo fully lately, I ſhall ſpare to ſpeak any thing, and referre the Reader to their learned Books enti…uled*There …e…e …o Suprea…, two Higheſt powers, both ſuprea…e in their owne kind & ſphere, one Civill, another Eccleſiaſtical…: Moſes above …Aaron… as the ſup…e…m Judge in the power of the ſword, … above Moſes In ſacrificing, in burning …, in judging betwen the clean and unclean. Mr. Rutherf… cap… …34. … …quaeſt. …. 38… 387, 388, 389, 390 cap. 15 quaeſt. 11. cap. 16. quaeſt. 12. p. 418. Mr. Gilleſpies: Book cap. 3. that the Jews had an Eccleſiaſticall Government diſtinct from the Civill. The Divine Right of Church Government, Aarons Rod Bloſſoming.
Thirdly, that the people of the Iewes were interchangably a Church and a Nation, ſo that whoever was a member of the Church was a member of the Common-wealth, and vice verſa, of which ſee the Book entituled The Antient Bounds or Liberty of Conſcience ſeated, page 60. Now Maſter Gilleſpie in his Aarons Rod bloſſoming, Book 1. chap. 2. proves ſtrongly that the Iewiſh Church was formally diſtinct from the Iewiſh State, and that in ſeven particulars, as in reſpect of diſtinct Lawes, diſtinct Acts, diſtinct Officers, ſo in reſpect of diſtinct Members, there being Members of the Church among them, who had the name of▪ Proſelyti Iuſtitiae, and were initiated into the Iewiſh Religion by Circumciſion, Sacrifice, &c. that nevertheleſſe were reſtrained and ſecluded from Dignities, Government and Preferment in the Iewiſh Common-wealth, and from divers matriages which were free to the Iſraelites. Maſter SELDEN alſo in that learned. Book of his, De Jure Natur. & Gentium, lib. 2. cap. 4. lib. 5. cap. 20. ſpeaks as much of thoſe Proſelytes. Proſelytus juſtitiae utcunque novato patriae nomine Iudaeu… diceretur, non tam quidem, ci… is Iudaicus ſimpliciter cenſendus eſſet quam peregrinus ſempe…, cui jura quamplurima inter cives. Secondly, how do they prove that Iehu, Ioaſh, Manaſſeh, Aſa, Hezekiah, Ieboſophat, Ioſiah, were Types of Chriſt, and did execu…e typically the kingly office of Chriſt in his Church, were Kings in an Eccleſiaſticall notion an, extraordinary way, not ruling only for the Church, but in the Church, and over it, as*The Antient Bounds or Liberty of Conſcience ſtated. pag. 59, 60. they ſay. Moſes, Ioſhua, David, Solomon, were in their perſons, places and actions, expreſſe types of Ieſus Chriſt (as 'tis evident in the New Teſtament) Pen-men alſo of Scripture, beſides Prophets as well as Magiſtrates, and ſo were extraordinary men, that every thing they did in Religion is not a binding example to Magiſtrates now as many*Trigland. de poteſt. Civil. & Eccleſ. pag. 233, 234. Walaei T…actat. de manere Ministr. Eccleſ. & Inspectione Ma…iſtratus circa illud. from p. 21. to p. 35. Apollon. Ius Majeſtat. circa ſacra part. pri. 67, 68. Reformed Divines have ſhowen againſt the Arminians and Eraſtians, but that Aſa, Ioſiah, Hezekiah, Iehoſaphat were, is gratis dictum, not yet proved, neither were theſe Pen-men of holy▪ Scripture, or Prophets extraordinarily inſpired, but theſe foure great Reformers as Kings were ſtirred up, enquiring after, and directed by Prophets, as the Reader may finde clearly in the ſtories of them in the Chronicles and Kings. Beſides I finde not among*See Dr. Taylors Treatiſſe of the Types and ſhadowes of Chriſt contained in the Scriptures. Divines who have written of the Types of Chriſt, or*Triglandus de poteſtat. Civil. & Eccleſiaſtica Jehoſaphat, Hiskia, Joſiah, & ſimiles nil niſi reges fuere non Proph…tae. p. 237. A great difference is made by learned Divines for Types and Prophets between Moſes, David, Solomon Joſhua, and Joſiah, Hezekiah, &c. who grant Moſes, David, Solomon to be expreſſe Types that they make Aſa, Ioſiah, &c. to be Types. Again of Types of Chriſt (as Divines diſtinguiſh) there are particular perſons types of him as Adam, Noah, Iſaac, Joſeph, Moſes, Joſhua, Samſon, David, Solomon, Jonah, and there are ſuch rancks and orders of men, as the Firſt-born, Kings, Prophets, &c. Now though all of the firſt ſort are ſpeciall particular Types of him, ſo that the ſpeciall things done by them do typifie and ſet forth Chriſt in many particulars of his perſon, actions and ſufferings: yet the rancks and orders of men as the Firſt-born, Kings, Prophets, may not be typicall in all the particular perſons of thoſe ranks and orders, at leaſt to the particular acts they do in thoſe ranks and orders: but 'tis enough for many in thoſe orders to agree in common, as in being Kings and Prophets, as Chriſt was, there being ſome in all thoſe orders and ranks appointed of God eſpecially and peculiarly to be the Types, which others are not, and for whoſe ſakes in thoſe orders and ranks, ſuch orders of men were inſtituted by God to be Types, of which many inſtances might be given with the Reaſons thereof in ſome of the Firſt-born, Kings, &c. but I ſhall reſerve the further handling of that to a ſecond part upon this Subject. Laſtly, ſuppoſing Aſa, Joſiah, and thoſe godly Kings to be Types of Chriſt, may it not be doubted whether Jehu, Ieboaſh, Ammon, Ieroboam, &c. were Types of Chriſt, and did execute his kingly office, who yet were commended, viz. the two fir…t, for deſtroying falſe worſhip, and reproved for not doing it conſtantly; beſides could thoſe Kings of Iſrael and Iudah (who yet were lawfull Kings) that apoſtatiſed from all the whole worſhip of God, the Ceremoniall Law that ordained the Types, that deſtroyed Gods ſervice and the Prieſthood, made Prieſts of the loweſt of the people, be Types of Chriſt? and I deſire to be reſolved or M. S. the Author of the Antient bounds of Liberty of Conſcience ſtated, whether any wicked men were ſpeciall Types of Chriſt, and whether all perſons who were Types of Chriſt were not ſaved. Thirdly ſuppoſe theſe Kings of Iudah were Types of Chriſt in ſetting on the Thron of David, and ruling over Iudah, in Chriſt the King of his Church coming out of their loines, yet they were temporall Kings, had Civill authority: Now how does it appear that what they did in puniſhing idolatrous Prieſts, comm…nding their ſubjects to the true worſhip of God, they did only as. Types by vertue of that Notion, and not as they were temporall Kings, which muſt be proved before their examples can be made null; and I am ſure the Scripture no where faith that the Kings of Iudah and Iſrael in what they commanded in matters of Religion, they did as Types of Chriſt, and not as Civill Magiſtrates: 'Tis one thing to be a Type, and another thing to doe ſuch things meerly qua Types; and what if Chriſtian Magiſtrates leaning upon this broken ſtaffe, ſuffering all Herefies, Blaſphemies and Idolatries in their Kingdomes, Chriſt at the laſt day when they ſtand before the judgement feat, they objecting for themſelves the Kings of Iſrael and Iudah were Types of Chriſt and all they did was by vertue of their typicall notion, ſhal tell them no, but as Magiſtrates entruſted by God with a power and authority, how will they be then confounded? will this diſtinction and notion found out by Libertines deliver from the wrath to come? had not Princes need be on better grounds then Apocryphall notions, ſuch diſtinctions of which God in his. Word never gave any foundation? but beſides the Apocryphalneſſe of this notion, that theſe Kings reformed Religion not meerly quae Types, but as Kings and Princes over ſubjects, may be proved thus.
Firſt, becauſe Magiſtrates before them, and Magiſtrates of other Common-wealths did ſo, as is largely ſhown in the twelfth Th…ſis.
Secondly, Types were not ordained by the Politicall or Morall Law, as Magiſtrates and their authority, but by the Ceremoniall Law.
Thirdly, for that which they ſay the Kings of Iſrael, the Iews and their Land were Types of, and that which by their Kings puniſhing Idolaters and Seducers was typified,The Blo…dy Tenet. page 179 namely ſpiritual cenſures under the Goſpel of Excomm…nication and caſting out of the wicked from the Churches of the Goſpel, 'tis denied they were Types of the Chriſtian Church in reſpect of the Civill State, but of the Spirituall and Eccleſiaſticall Government by Church Officers; ſo the Land of Canaan was a Type of heaven, not as it contained the Civill State, but the Church; it being a Type of Heaven before they had poſſeſſion of it, or their Civill State and Government ſet up, and yet no Type of Heaven till the people of God had a promiſe of it, … is evident by laying the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament together. And as for thoſe puniſhments inflicted by Kings typifying the cenſures under the Goſpel, we muſt know that all the Spiritual Cenſures of Admonition, Suſpenſion, Excommunication, were under the Old Teſtament in the time of the Kings of Iudah, and that not only for Ceremoniall uncleanneſſes, but for morall and ſcandalous fin…, all which is fully proved by Maſter Gillaſpie at large in his A… rous Rod bloſſoming, 2 Book 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 12. chapters.
Fourthly, granting what theſe Libertines ſay that the Kings of Judah were Types of Chriſt, and in what they did they aypified Chriſts kingly Office, yet this cannot enervate the examples of theſe Kings, unleſſe doing things as a Type, and as a Morall example, could not ſtand in one and the ſame perſon, which is not ſo: Some particular perſons may be intended by God Types of Chriſt (the higheſt kind of Type) and their action intended to typifie ſpeciall works of Chriſt,☞ and yet thoſe very action… may be Morall and binding all in ſuch relations whoſe perſons nor actions can in no kind be judged typicall, and the reaſon of it is, becauſe God may ſerve himſelf of a perſon or office doing things commanded in the Moral law to make a type of, …nd though God intends ſuch a man by ſuch and ſuch actions to make him a Type, yet the man may not know ſo much, nor intend any ſuch thing in ſuch actions, but do all by vertue of a Morall command; and for the better underſtanding of this, let the Reader conſider that in ſome perſons the ſame actions may be both Typicall and Morall,☞ extraordinary in regard of the ma…er and ſome circumſtances, and ordinary in regard of the matter and ſubſtance, typicall as typifying Chriſt and what he ſhould do, and yet Mo…all duties which he ought to do, and all others alſo in ſuch relations: ſo that though ſome perſons be Types, and the things they do typicall, yet they may be Morall too, and ſo binding, which though as they were typicall they may be taken away, yet as they were Morall may be in full force; As for example, Chriſt was figured in Joſeph, Ioſeph was an eminent Type of Chriſt*See Dr. Taylors Treatiſe of Types, c. 6. p. 33 34, 35, 36. in the firſt …ank of Types as a ſingular perſon typifying him, not as a rank or order of men by office only as thoſe kings of Iudah ſpoken of, and among other things he was a Type in feeding his Father and his Brethren, that when advanced in the kingdome he provided for, and nouriſhed his Fathers houſe, which typified Ieſus Chriſt feeding the Family of God, and preſerving the Church alive. Now though Ioſeph in this action was a Type of Chriſt, and did it typically, yet not only typically, but did this morally and naturally too by vertue of the fifth Commandement, and ſixth Commandement, of childrens duty to their Parents, and of preſerving life; and by vertue of this example of Ioſeph every man in high place and rich, is bound to ſend for and provide for Father and Brethren in a neceſſitous condition;☜ and ſuppoſe now a man in Ioſephs condition ſhould have Father and Brethren in want, whom he ſhould neglect, and being preſſed by Ioſephs example to provide for them, he ſhould anſwer Ioſephs practiſe was nothing to him, for he was a Type of Chriſt, and typified Chriſts feeding of his Church not with temporall food only, but with the Manna from Heaven, the word and Sacraments, I aske of thoſe who plead this Argument of typicalneſſe, whether this were a good Anſwer? and if not, neither is theirs againſt the practiſe of the kings of Iudah from being Types of Chriſt; and I wiſh the Pleaders for Toleration would ſerious conſider of, and reſolve this Queſtion, though Ioſeph was a ſpeciall Type of Chriſt, and in this action of preſerving his Father and Brethren a Type of Chriſts preſerving his Church, yet whether this action of his to his Father, Brethren and their children, do not bind now in the dayes of the Goſpel children to their Fathers &c. or whether the typicalneſſe of it hath cauſed it to ceaſe? and in the reſolution of this caſe, the ingenuous Reader may ſee what to judge of the typicalneſſe of the kings of Iudah, and that typicalneſſe of perſons and actions does not preſently make all ſuch perſons and actions that they cannot be examples or rules to others who are not typicall.☜ The Prophets and Propheticall office were Types of Chriſt as well as the kings of Iudah; and yet actions they did that were ſome way typicall and extraordinary, bind Chriſtians under the Goſpel for the ſubſtance and matter, and are ſet before them for example, as Eli… a Type, and in his Prayer a Type, yea ſomewhat in it extraordinary, is by Iames propounded in prayer as a patterne and a proof of effectuall ſervent prayer to righteous men under the Goſpel, Iames 5. 16, 17, 18. In Hebrews 11. many are named who in their perſons were undoubted Types of Chriſt, as Noah, Iſaac, Joſeph, Moſes, Samſon, David, and others, who if not Types in their perſons, yet were in an extraordinary way, as Abraham, Iacob, Gideon, Iephtah, &c. Now in the point of faith and patience (though Types or extraordinary perſons) are ſet down for examples and patterns to Chriſtians under the New Teſtament, Hebrews 12. verſe 1, 2. I could give many more inſtances of Types and extraordinary perſons, whom in Morall practicall things, matters of faith, holineſſe, righteouſnes (though they did ſuch things extraordinarily, and as Types of Chriſt either perſonally or officially) Chriſtians in an ordinary way are commanded to follow, and therefore in the preſent caſe the vindicating of and promoting of the glory of God, the puniſhing of evill doers (which Blaſphemers, Hereticks, and Sciſmaticks are) the commanding good, being Morall-practicall things of perpetuall reaſon and equity bind all thoſe in authority and government according to their places, though they be no Types nor extraordinary perſons.
Fifthly, if this evaſion of the kings of Iſrael and Iudah about Typicalneſſe be good, by the ſame reaſon it may hold againſt. Magiſtrates puniſhing under the Goſpel for matters of the ſecond Table, murther, adultery, &c. for may not the Socinians and Anabaptiſts, who deny Chriſtian Magiſtrates may puniſh capitally for murther, treaſon, &c. ſay the ſame thing againſt all the examples of Magiſtrates and kings under the old Law puniſhing with death for ſuch offences, that they were Types, and that people and Land typicall, which no Magiſtrate nor people are now, and what ever can be ſaid upon this ground againſt Princes meddling in matters of Religion, may as well be ſaid againſt their puniſhing in Civill matters, and Anabaptiſts, and Socinians may as well ſay thoſe Kings were Types of Chriſt in reſpect of their power over the State as over the Church; and if they ſhould affirm it, how would it be diſproved? And the Bloudy …Tene… ▪ pag. 209. grants that in the Land of Iſrael all things, their civils, morals and naturals, were carried on in Types as well as their Spirituals and Eccleſiaſticals; yea by this ground what ever ſhall be brought out of the Old Teſtament to ſhow the duty of Magiſtrates, duplicate page duplicate page or the qualifications of them, as that they that rule over men muſt be juſt, fearing God, hating covetouſneſſe, courageous, &c. it may be anſwered, that was required of thoſe who were typicall, and their people typicall, but it concerns not Magiſtrates now; and yet higher, by this evaſion men may reaſon againſt all inſtances out of the Old Teſtament brought from Fathers, Maſters, to bring up their children in the feare of God, &c. becauſe the firſt-borne, ſuch Fathers and Maſters of families were typicall,☜ and their children typicall, which Fathers are not under the Goſpel.
Sixthly, if this anſwer of typicalneſſe may hold, all thoſe Kings and Princes actions and practiſes in other things of Morall particular duties, as prayer, mourning for ſinne, giving God thanks for deliverances, &c. are taken away from binding now, as well as their acts of power and authority; and when Miniſters bring theſe examples of David, Ioſiah, Hezekiah, &c. in ſuch things, it may be ſaid they were Types of Chriſt, and did them as Types of ſomething to come: the Antinomian may upon this ground anſwer the example of Davids praying ſo often and conſtantly, and of mourning for his ſinnes, by ſaying David was a Type of Chriſt.
Seventhly, by this Anſwer all the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament, Moſes, Pſalms, Prophets, with whatever of any duty cōmanded, or ſin ſpoken againſt in any of theſe, are at once made void: for it may be ſaid the Pen-men were Types, and given to a typicall people, written in a typicall Land: It may be ſaid of the whole Morall Law, that as Moſes in his perſon was a Type of Chriſt in many particulars, ſo in delivering the Law he ſhadowed Chriſt the Mediatour, Moſes being a mediator betweene God and his people in giving the Law, Galat. 3. 19. the Law was delivered in the hand of a Mediator, that is Moſes, Acts 7. 38. and therefore not binding to Chriſtians. And ſo it may be pretended of all things written in the Pſalms, Prophets, and the other Books that they were (viz. the Oracles of God) committed to the Jewes and the Circumciſion, Rom. 3. 2. Rom. 9. 4. which people and Nation of Iſrael were typicall of the true Iſrael, the Iſrael of God, Galat. 6. 16. So the Land of Canaan was typicall of reſt from …, and of true reſt, and the heavenly inheritance, Hebr. 4. 1, 2, 3, 8▪ 9, 10, 11. verſ. And indeed what was not typicall ſome way or other in the Jewiſh Church and State, as the firſt-borne, the Prieſts, Kings, Prophets, the Land, the people, their worſhips, with many more particulars, ſo that if this Anſwer ſtand good, all the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament are overthrown, and all Hereticks whatſoever, Socinians, Antinomians, Familiſts, &c. may evade any Scripture brought from thence, as well as the pleaders for Toleration the examples of the Kings of Iſrael and Judah.
8ly. All the actions and practiſes done by perſons and things typicall are ſo farre from nothing concerning them who live under the Goſpel, that the Scriptures of the New Teſtament tell us, that many things under the Old Teſtament were made Figures and Type… for the admonitions and example of thoſe in like caſes under the New, and did teach to the uttermoſt, as the 1 Cor. 10. from the ſixth verſe to the twelfth, and that clauſe of promiſe in the fifth Commandement, That thy dayes may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, is meant of the Land of Canaan a typicall Land, which yet did teach Chriſtians under the New Teſtament, that obedience to their Parents would bring a being well with them, and living long upon the earth (though they had not the Land of Canaan) as Epheſ. 6. 1, 2. 3. fully ſhowes. Saint Paul alſo tells us, Rom. 15. 4. that whatſoever things were written …, were written for our learning, and ſo thoſe Magiſtrates and Princes of Iſrael and Judah (how ever they might typifie Chriſts Kingdome) they were ſuch Types ſpoken of in 1 Cor. 10. viz. examples to Chriſtian Magiſtrates to teach them to do ſo likewiſe, as Fathers then were to teach Fathers now to inſtruct their children, and therefore though ſuch an order of men as Kings in Iſrael might be intended to typifie Chriſts Kingdom, yet that no way hinders, but what they did as Kings in ruling and ordering of their ſubjects, they performed as the proper works of their places common to them with other Princes, without any reference to their being Types, or doing them as Types, God in Scripture recording all along what they did, as going upon common morall grounds, and ſpeaking nothing of them in their Reformations as in a figurative typicall notion. And in the cloſe of my Anſwer to this evaſion of the inſtances of the Kings of Judah, I ſhall hint to the Reader to conſider ſome notes of diſtinction between actions meerly typicall and fulfilled in the Antitype, done only to repreſent and ſhadow forth what Chriſt was to do,☜ and mixt actions, morall and typicall too, or at leaſt the actions of one who by perſon or order is a Type; and upon ſearch it will be found that all the notes of actions morall, not meerly typicall, will be found in the practiſes of thoſe Ks of Judah and Iſrael before named, As firſt, when their practiſes and wayes are not barely related, but commended and praiſed by God, wheras actions meerly typical are only related and ſet down, as in Samſon, and divers others▪ Secondly, when done upon morall grounds and reaſons, motives drawn from mercies, bleſſings, evils, and judgements, commands and meſſages from God experiences of God, upon Gods convincing and converting men. Thirdly, when they of ſuch an Order and office are reproved and puniſhed for not doing ſuch things, or for not thoroughly doing them, whereas I ſuppoſe perſons typicall, and whoſe actions are intended to be meerly typicall, will and ſhall do ſuch things though they may not know the meaning of them, of which many inſtances might be given in ſome actions of Samſon, Jonas and others. Fourthly, when as their actions are ſutable to thoſe qualifications, titles and deſcriptions given in Scripture of Magiſtrates and that office in generall. Fifthly, when what they do is agreeable and ſutable to the commands and directions given by God to all of that order and rank, and they do in the matter of Religion in commanding to good and ſuppreſſing evil, what all other Magiſtrates have done in all times and ages, who have cared for any Religion at all, as Heathen Princes before they knew the true God, and others after they have known him, however through ignorance or ſuperſtition they might miſtake about the true way and worſhip: Now let the Reader but conſider of all theſe notes of diſtinction, and others of the like nature that might be given, and he will find them agree to thoſe Kings Jo…ia…, Hezekiah, Manaſſeh, Aſa, &c. for the ſubſtance of all they did in commanding their people to the right way▪ and ſuppreſſing the falſe, and ſo much for anſwering of this evaſion of the practiſe of the Kings of Iſrael and Judah, which I have been the larger in, becauſe ſo great a weight of this controverſie on all the Sectaries part lies on this typicalneſſe both of the Jewiſh Magiſtrates and people.