The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 4 · Chapter 3

The Government of the Churches of Christ · Book 4 · Chapter 3

p. 166CHAP. III.

That the External Institutions of Christ, for the Government of his Saints under the New Testament, is not the same that was under the Law, nor can the Government of the Jewish Church, be made a certain Rule for the Government of the Church of Christ.

THere are many things that were commanded to the Jews, which are obligatory to us Christians; tho' there are also many things which were Rules and Laws to them, which are not so to us. It will therefore be necessary, in stating the case first, to shew what is equally binding to us both.

1. All such Duties as depend not upon Institution, but are Duties belonging to the First Commandment, as to Pray, to hear the Word, to give Thanks, must needs continue as well under the New Testament, as under the Old, and are the same.

2. Such things as then had then a Morality in them, yet if the Morality was only by meer Institution, which depends upon the Will of God, (which Divines call Moral positions) even such Institutions, in their own individual Nature, cannot be urged upon us as Rules. As to instance in that of the Sabbath Day; if any should infer, that that Seventh Day should be the Sabbath Day under the New Testament, which was the Seventh after the Creation, would be a false Reasoning; although indeed, the Institution of the Seventh Day, to be the Sabbath, was not Ceremonial meerly, but had a Morality in it; for it was from the Creation. The two Sacraments of Circumcision and the Passover, had assuredly besides the Ceremonialness annexed to them, the Institution of Typifying of Christ to come (which Circumcision did by Blood, and being Administred the Eighth Day) these Sacraments signifying Jesus Christ, the Substance of them must needs be Moral, and that by Institution, as well as ours are now; as in 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. They did all eat of the same Spiritual Meat (the same Spiritual Manna) and all Drank of the same Spiritual Drink. But yet it doth not follow, that the same Sacraments for Substance (cutting off the ceremonial part) should continue, but God was pleased to Institute other two in their rooms.

3. Yet whatsoever was Moral in the Substance of the Jewish Institution then, there is this equality, that Jesus Christ should Institute something in the room of it, in the New Testament. As for Example, because there was an High Priest; because there was an House of God then, the Apostle therefore argues, (Heb. 20. 21, to 26.) that we having an High Priest over the House of God, there is to be Assemblies to be now, as well as then: But as these Assemblies should be Formed up, and cast into the same Latitude and Extent, and the like, which their Assemblies had then; herein a new Institution putteth the difference. They had National Assemblies then, not so now: The Priests were maintained by Tithes and Offerings then, the equity of this continueth, and the Apostle urgeth it in his Epistle to the Corinthians; but yet it followeth not, that their Maintenance now should be the same way. And although there was a Moral equality in it, yet the Apostle Superaddeth, So I Ordain in all the Churches, 1 Cor. 7. 17.

4. When the Gospel hath once made an Institution in the Room of what was under the Law (as it hath done Baptism in stead of Circumcision tho' not exactly on the same Moral Ground; yet on the same Evangelical Ground, as Baptism was the Substance extant, under the Type of circumcision) this will warrant the Application of Baptism, unto like Infant Children now; when the Gospel it self also holds forth the same priviledge for Substance, unto such Children now, as it did then; and renews the same promise to them; tho' in an Evangelical way, far differing from that in the Old Testament, which contained a Typicalness in it. And this is not to raise up a New Institution, it is only the Application of an Institution to a Person; and that also when the Gospel holds forth the same ground which the Law did. But if any would reason, that because there was a circumcision under the Law, a Sacrament of initiation into the Church, therefore there must be the same under the Gospel, (if they cannot shew that Jesus hath appointed it, for the continuing of such an Institution) p. 167the Argument from the Old will not hold, or if they would argue, that it should be Administred in the same Latitude; or that the same Persons, who did Administer Circumcision under the Old Testament, may Administer Baptism now, we believe our Brethren will not concede to it, though the Argument will be as strong one way, as the other; for the Father of the Family might circumcise them, and did; but they would have only Ministers to Baptize now; and they too circumcised then in their Families, and did not bring their Children to the Temple.

5. That the Laws of the Old Testament, do help up to Regulate many Institutions in the New, we acknowledge (as likewise the Laws of Nature do) but they will not be Warrant sufficient, to set up the like. So the Rules of the Judicial Law, concerning the punishments of criminal Acts, that none should be condemned under two or three Witnesses, these Rules will serve unto, and perhaps ought to be received by, every State (as some have held) to Regulate their proceedings against Malefactors: But yet unto Jewish policy (take it for the Government of it, and the ranks of Officers among them, and power they had) Nations are not bound so, as though the Rules of equity, whereby that policy did proceed, were perpetual, yet the question remains still of the power. That Ministers should be maintained, as they were then, the equity of the Law holds, but it will no way follow, that there should be the same Ranks of Ministers.

6. That the New Testament, intitles some of those Ordinances, that it self hath anew Instituted, with the same Names and Words used in the Old Testament, argues not that those Ordinances are to be framed and formed according to the Analogy of the Old: But they have the same Names, because that the Old were Types of these. Thus that our Ordinances now are called Sacrifices: That Christ is called an High Priest: That the Officers of the Church are called a Presbytery: That Excommunication is called a purging out the Old Leaven, and many such like, in the Evangelist; all this will not prove, that there should be Sacrifices, High Priests, &c. under the New Testament. In the Evangelist, Christ speaking of the Teachers of the New Testament, saith, (Matth. 23. 34.) I will send you Wise Men, and Scribes, &c, but yet it follows not, that the Orders of the Officers of the New Testament, should be answerable to the Wise Men, and the Scribes: So when a Believer, or a Church is called the Temple of God, when the Saints are called a Royal Nation, and the like; no inference can be made, that there should now be a Temple, and a National Church.

7. There were many things which are Moral now, that were not Moral then. To cast out of the Church for Moral sins, as such Qua Moral, is the Law of Christ now: But under the Old Law, they did not keep Men from Ordinances, for sins as Moral; but as having a ceremonial uncleanness annexed to them. No Man is to put his Wife away now, because she is a Heathen; but they were to put their Wives away then, if Heathens, after Moses his Law was setled. In destroying matters of Idolatry, they were to be much stricter than we are bound to be, as Meats Sacrificed to Idols, they were in no place to eat thereof, Daniel refused the Kings Meat; but out of the Idol's Temple, we may eat things that have been Sacrificed to Idols, as the Apostle saith. They were to destroy all the Temples and Groves, &c. but if places have been abused to Idolatry, we under the Gospel may make use of them. They were to destroy the Canaanites out of the Land, not we so now. They were to burn Idolater's Goods, as in Jericho, &c. Not so now.

Having thus made way by these particulars premised, I shall now prove my Proposition, that the Jewish Economy, is no Pattern or Rule for Modelling the Church of Christ, under the Gospel.

1. The Priesthood being changed, there is a necessity of a change of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. and so of the Law of the Government, which depends on Christ's Priestly Office. We having a new High Priest over the House of God, we have a new Order in this House. For he is the Apostle and High Priest of our Profession, and it was meet it should appear, he was the new High Priest, by uttering the Institution for Worship and Government. So then that Old Law, which depended upon Institutions, as the High Priesthood it self did, is to be changed, and a new Law of Institutions, is to come in the room of it; and therefore in the Heb. 9. 10. it is called a Reformation, and the time of the Gospel is called, the time of Reformation.

2. That Jewish Frame, and Form of Government, is called the Elements of the p. 168World; and therefore both in Coloss. 2. and Rom. 12. the Apostle bids us under the Gospel, not to be conformed neither for Worship nor Government (further than as Jesus Christ hath been pleased to take what was before, and make it anew) to the Elements of the World. So in Galat. 4. 2, 3. he saith, they were under Tutors and Governours, till they came to be of Man's Estate, or to be of Age; which under the Gospel, they are in comparison. And indeed the Gospel being more spiritual the Frame of the Government, and Institutions of it, are not formed to a Worldly way to Governments of Nations, and of Kingdoms, as that was then, to an outward external Glory, as their Worship also was. As God hath chosen the Preaching of the Word, which is foolishness, so he hath chosen many of those things, which are vile and base, and contemptible, and a foolishness of Government, in comparison of what was then: And this is it deceiveth the World; for the Gospel is a Mystery throughout: He chooseth the Synagogue, and not the Temple; he chooseth a Congregation and Eldership, and not the Synedrim; he chooseth Baptism, and not Circumcision, &c.

3. Our Lord and Saviour, speaks altogether of a new Church to be made, a Church gathered in his Name, as when he Instituted Baptism, to shew that it was a new Ordinance; he bids them Baptize in his Name, so to shew that he erected a Frame of a New Church, he bids that it should be gathered in his Name.

4. Our Brethren's Principles, that hold the Universal Church, to be the Seat and Subject of Christ's Institution, argue this; for as his Church now over all Nations, both Jew and Gentile, is a differing Seat from that of the Jew only, so answerably, to set in his Church Apostles and Prophets, &c. in stead of chief Priests, &c. is a new Institution; and it is certain▪ that that Church, whereof the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. is the Church of the New Testament: And therefore if the Church Universal being a politick, be argued from thence, it is by a new Institution, differing from the former; because the Church of the New Testament, which he speaks of there, began with the Apostles. And besides the Institution fell upon the Church of the Jews Qua National; but this falls upon the Church, Qua Ʋniversal, in all Nations, else it would not extend to all Nations to be equal standers in it, whereas under the Law, they were not to be so with the Jews; but were to come under that National covenant, only when Proselited.

4. There seems to have been several forts of Policies and Orders extant, under the Old Testament, and unto which of these should the conformity now be made? By what rules should we now judge?

1. There were 1. Chief Rulers over several Bodies of the Priests and Levites: To which Government the Bishops say, their order is an Allusion. There was also a power in these Priests and Levites, proper and peculiar to them, to judge of the clean and unclean; and concerning the matters of Worship in the Temple. And this Government was purely Ecclesiastical; and unto this therefore, rather should the Analogy refer of matters in the Church, seeing that these were purely such.

2. Again, There were the civil Judicatures in their Cities and Towns, and in their great Synedrim at Jerusalem, for all controversies within their Gates, as the Distinction is in Deut. 17. Yet these were all Ecclesiastical, but indeed mixed both in respect of causes and persons; their Church and Commonwealth being so mixed, as it is hard to distinguish what belonged to them, meerly as a Commonwealth, and what belonged to them as a Church, in respect of what came under the cognizance and power of those Courts.

3. Then again, There was their Synagogical Government, which seems to be differing from what either the Priests had in the Temple, in respect of Persons clean and unclean ceremonially, or over one another; or from Courts of Judicature in their Gates. A Government those Synagogues had, for there are the Rulers of them mentioned; and also punishments they had, for when the Romans took away their Government in their Gates, they scourged in their Synagogues. There were Admonitions also, or Excommunications, or casting Men out of their Synagogues. The Great Synedrim, and their other Courts, did punish by civil mulcts, and the Synedrim did put to Death: In the Temple, the Priests kept out the unclean; and the Judgment of that was not by the Synedrim, but by the Priests that did look to the Worship of the Temple: But the Synagogues did cast a Man out; and the Priests did not Supervize the Government of the Synagogues.

p. 169And that all this was a matter of a differing cognisance, from what was Transacted in their other Courts, is evident by this, that for many sins (besides the civil punishments that were adjudged in the Courts of their Gates, as to restore and the like) a Man was further obliged to come to the Temple, with Confession, and with a Sacrifice; so as the charge of the things of the Temple, and the Order and Discipline thereof, was another thing than that of their civil Courts. And although a Man was cast out of the Synagogues, and was in respect of such a communion, as a Heathen and a Publican; yet he might still come to the Temple, and partake in the Worship thereof. But that the Synedrim did at any time pronounce that Sentence, that a Man should be as an Heathen or Publican, that this was proper to their Courts, we believe not. Now it is left very uncertain, to which of these the Analogy of the Government of a Gospel Church should be accomodated.

Object. It is said, that our Saviour Christ, in Matth. 18. reflected upon some Bench or Court, the next then extant, to which the People were wont to resort among the Jews, and so intimated, that his Will was, that the Church, under the Gospel, should be formed up conformably to us, and that so it should be like to that of the Jews, and so the policy of the Church of the New Testament, should be conformed to the policy of the Old, by vertue of that first Institution, And from thence it is argued, that there should be Ruling Elders, that are not Teachers, because there were such among the Jews: From thence it is argued, that there should be a National Church, a National Synedrim or Assembly, as was among the Jews: From thence it is argued, that the power is in the Elders alone, because it was so among the Jews, who are called the Church: And so this Analogy of the Jewish Church, is one of the great Foundations of the Presbyterian Government, and of Classical and National Assemblies.

Answ. But besides that, it was not necessary that Jesus Christ should allude to it, though he useth the same Phrase: The Deformity of that Pattern, and the policy of the Government of the New Testament is such, as that that cannot be Christ's intent.

For 1. If we take the Jewish Pattern, in matter of Government, we shall be worse put to it, to judge what is ceremonial, and what is perpetual, or what was a judicial Appendix to the ceremonial, and added upon a supposition of it, more than we are put to it to judge, what was ordinary, and what was extraordinary in the Apostle's practices. If that our Saviour Christ alluded to it in the gross, and in the lump, who shall be able to distinguish?

2. If that policy should thereby be Established, it would as well serve for the erecting of Episcopal Government over Ministers; for although it is said, that Aaron's High Priesthood was Christ's Type, and not the Type of Bishops; yet that the Priests These were called the chief Priests Mar. 2. 4. & Ch. 27. 1. Acts 19. 4.Mark 2:4Acts 19:4and the Levites (several companies of them) should have one that was the chief overseer over all, who is by the Septuagint called foreign Bishop and Overseer was no way Typical. There were four sorts of Levites. Priests, Kohathites, Gershemites, Mecarites, Numb. 3. 30, & 35. And over each of those, were four Eminent persons, whereof Eleazar was one, Numb. 3. 32. And when Eleazar was made High Priest, then Phinehas was Governour of the Levites, and had oversight of them, Ruling of them, as a Chron 9. 20. And Numb. 4. 33. Ithamar was over the Sons of Gershom and Merari. And in Neh. 11. 14, & 22. They are called Overseers, or as the Septuagint translates it foreign Bishops, the same word is used of the Apostles, Acts 1, 1. 20. and their office, unto which (say the Episcopal party) Bishops do Succeed as Rulers over other Ministers (though perhaps called Bishops also) as the Apostles were over the Seventy, and all other Ministers. And for this, will the Jewish pattern and policy (if that were alluded to) serve as well as for the Presbyterian Government. And in 2 Chron. 35. 8. we read of the three Rulers of the House of God, whereof but one was the High Priest: Now although that the High Priest, for his going into the Holy of Holies, was a Type of Christ, yet not all those other that were the Rulers of the Priests, and of the House of God.

And if it be replyed as it is by some, that this was but the Law of Nature, the Heads of these Familses being Rulers over the rest, it is answered.

1. So was not Korah, Numb. 16. 1.

2. The Law of Nature, makes as well for one Man to Govern over many, and so for a Monarchical Government, …s for an Aristocratical, and so Episcopal Government might be argued to be suited to the Law of Nature, as well as to the Jewish.

3. It belonged not to the ceremonial Law, but it served only for Order; and although the Eldest of the Family were those Governours that were set over the p. 170rest of a company of Priests of the same Family, and so that the Eldest had it by Birth, and by the Law of Nature; yet that one should be set over the rest, was meerly a matter of Order, and therefore will plead for it self as strongly (if we take the Jewish Pattern) as for any other way of Government.

It may be objected, that upon this ground, that one Man makes not the Church, Episcopal Power is cut off, and that therefore the Allusion of our Lord Christ in Matth. 18. is to those Courts that were erected among the Jews.

Answ. 1. In the first place, either there were two sorts of Courts, one civil, and the other purely Ecclesiastical, two kind of Synedrims, both in each City, and in Jerusalem, which can never be proved: And if two, which of these two Christ should Allude to, will still be the question. Or if there were but one kind of Court, that was both for civil and ecclesiastical Government; then the Jewish Pattern will not serve the turn, for then, by that reason, Persons Ecclesiastical, now should deal in civil causes (for so they did then) and Persons civil, should deal in Ecclesiastical. Yea, and those that hold there were two Courts, the one for causes civil, the other for ecclesiastical; yet they say, the Persons in both were mixed. And because that both were thus mixed, therefore in Deut. 17. 9. speaking of the Synedrim, he saith, When thou shalt come to the Priest, or the Judges, which shall be in those Days, &c. for sometime a Priest was the President of that Council, and sometimes a civil Person, that was not of the Priest's Office, whom therefore he calleth a Judge. It was by Institution, that there should be some Priests, Ezek 44. 24. Deut. 24. 8. 2 Chron. 18. 18. Deut. 16. 18. And also that others then Priests and Levites, were of the Synedrim, and also Judges of particular Cities, as all sides acknowledge. For from hence, all Presbyterian Divines argue, the Pattern of Lay-Elders, which yet, if there be not an Institution for it in the New Testament, would never be able to be argued from hence; and therefore many of our Brethren that acknowledge Persons civil, that were not Priests and Levites, to have been mingled in those Courts, yet deny the consequence of that Argument, unto Ruling Elders now; which if the Jewish Pattern had held, it would have argued it. And it appears further, that therefore the Elders and the Priests are mentioned. Pharisees that were not of the Tribe of Levi threw off their Rulers, and the Priest or the Judge, Deut. 17. and the Judges, Elders and Priests, are usually put together in their Cities and Courts.

And the Reason why both were mixed thus, to become but one Court, was because that then the Church was mingled with the Common-wealth, and both were but one; therefore the Church of Israel is called the Common-wealth of Israel: And the Laws of their Common-wealth, were given immediately by God; and therefore the Levites, as well as the civil Authority, were the Interpreters of that Law. If therefore this should now be the pattern, as when according to our Brethren's Assertion, the Church grows up to a Nation, there should be a National Church; because that was the Pattern of the Jews, so when the Churches grew up to a Nation, the Ecclesiastical State, and the civil, should become mingled, and Ministers should Judge in civil Causes, and those, that are not Ministers, should Judge in Ecclesiastical, for so in that Synedrim they did.

If it be said, that all the Acts were not Church Acts, as sending Ambassadors, making Wars and the like: The answer is, that all such Acts as were towards other Nations, might not so properly be called Church Acts; but the question is, what was among themselves? And yet even their Wars were Holy, and their God was called the Lord of Hosts, and the Priests wait with Trumpets, to incourage the People to fight, as if it had been an Ecclesiastical business.

Answ. 2. Again Secondly, if that be the Pattern that Christ alludeth to, then if that State had whilst it stood in the Apostle's times turned Christian, it might have been conformed to the Jewish Patern of Government, as it then stood; and so the Persons of the Synedrim, that were Judges of the Jewish Church, should have continued Judges of the Christian Church.

3. If that the Jewish Government had been the Pattern, then there should be but two Courts Subordinate one to another; for so there was no more among the Jews, in a way of Subordination. There was the Court in each City and Town, consisting some of more, some of less, according to their proportion and bigness, that did Judge of all causes within themselves; and then there was the great Synedrim, and Appeals were made immediately from each of the Inferior Courts, unto this Superiour. And whereas it is said by some, that there were three Courts at Jerusalem p. 171for Appeals; we find not by the Scriptures, that there were three such Courts, although some of the Rabbins say there were. And when the Text saith, in Deut. 17. that whosoever would not obey the Sentence of the Judge, that should be in that place, should be put to Death; then when they brought it to the first Court, the Judges of the Twenty three at Jerusalem, according to that Notion, they should have been put to Death, and never have come to the great Synedrim. And if there were two such Courts of the Twenty three, besides the Synedrim, yet they were not for Appeals; but they were either the one of that City of Jerusalem, which as a City had the priviledge to have Judicature within it self, besides the Synedrim for the whole Nation; and the other of the Priests for the matters of the Temple (for the Temple was an inclosure) or else the one was for Jerusalem; and the other for the City of David (each having the priviledge of a City, although in two places, as Westminster and London have) the one was at the Door of the Mountain of the Lord, the other at the Door of the Temple. If then the Form of the Jewish Government be the Pattern, then all those Subordinate Congregational, Classical, Provincial, and National Assemblies, they shall be cut off; for the Jewish Pattern will not suit these.

4. If that were the Pattern, then the National Assembly should be the Supream Judge; and there should be none above that: But our National Assemblies, Presbyterian Divines, do place an Universal General Council, and make that to be the Supream; whereas the National Synedrim of the Jews, Qua National, was the Highest Court.

5. If that that be the Pattern, the matters brought to that Synedrim, so far as we have a Rule in the Word for it, were only matters that were too difficult; and when they were too difficult for those particular Courts in the Cities or Towns, they were brought to the General Assembly, Deut. 17. If a matter be too hard for thee, &c: Even as the hard matters, which none could Determine but God, were brought to Moses, Exod. 18. 21.

6. When the Inferior Court it self did find it to be too hard for them, it was not by way of Appeal, that they brought it to the Superiour, so in Deut. 17. If it be too hard for thee: So as it was not in the liberty of any Person to Appeal; but the Court finding themselves not able to decide the controversy, they were to carry it to the Synedrim (therefore the Rabbins say, that that place, Deut. 17. belongs only to a Rebellious Elder) And if so, then this place will not serve to have Ecclesiastical Courts for Appeals.

7. The Synedrim did only judge of the matter of the Law and Right in a Doctrinal way, in such and such a case; but it was still left, after their Sentence, unto the Inferiour Court to judge of the matter of fact, and to apply the Sentence: So as by this Rule, the greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils should not at all Excommunicate; but only Doctrinally deliver the Sentence, still leaving, to the particular Churches, the Application of that Rule, by the Sentence of Excommunication, in whose power alone it is. Therefore speaking to the Judges of the Inferior Courts, he says, Thou shalt do according to the Sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgments which they shall tell thee, Deut. 17. 10, 11.

8. The Synedrim executed civil punishments, as putting to Death, &c. if their Sentence was not obeyed, so that they Excommunicated not, but punishment was civil, which their Court inflicted.

9. If Appeals were made, and things were carryed to the Higher Courts, from the lower; there was an High punishment for the neglecting of the Sentence (supposing there were an Appeal) meerly because the Sentence of that Court was contemned. The Man was to be put to Death, although the matter wherein he disobeyed, did deserve a lesser punishment. But in the Ecclesiastical Government, that Christ hath set up, there is no higher punishment than Excommunication, and delivering to Satan, therefore this Pattern will not serve.

10. In that Synedrim, Persons were still the same Men, continually Resident. They were Officers on purpose that were set, and constant for that Church (even as Bishops are amongst us) and they resided at Jerusalem. And so the Foundation of the calling of the one to that National Assembly, and the calling of Ministers to our National Assemblies (which they would pattern by this) do wholy differ; for as ours are called by a new choice for that special Assembly, as occasion is, and by a choice too, residing in their particular Congregations and charges.

p. 172Object. It is said, 2 Chron. 19. 8. They returned to Jerusalem. It seems therefore they rod Circuit.

Answ. That was occasional, when first Religion was to be Reformed, and the People instructed, after a neglect of all Order and Government amongst them. Otherwise they were constant at Jerusalem, and had therefore a peculiar Title, being called Elders of the People, whereas others were called Elders of the Cities. And so the pattern of Bishops, who were constant Officers for a National Church, and attend wholy upon the publick (as the same Persons did always here in the high Commission) will much better suit the Jewish pattern.

11. They had always a chief, whom they called the Nasi, or the Prince, in imitation of the first Court, wherein Moses was chief, and the number with him: Seventy one, and so it is too Eze. 8. 11. 70 Elders, in the midst of them, Jazanias as the Prince; and if the Jewish pattern should hold, there should be such now. Therefore in Deut. 17. the Court, being Denominated from some one, is called the Priest or the Judge; and it would, according to that, much better suit Rome, than Zion, the Popish Government, than that of the Reformed Churches, it being a nearer pattern to have one Nasi, one Prince, one High Priest, with a constant number of Cardinals, in a place which they pretend the promise is made to. And accordingly Bellarmine urgeth it for the State of Antichrist, and with more reason and strength, and more likelihood, than for the Presbyterian pattern. For the High Priests were ordinarily over that Synedrim, so the Asmones in the time of the Machabees, Matth. 26. 5. 7. and Acts 23. 5. compared with, Exod. 22. 28.

12. There was a peculiar place, which God did then Sanctifie at Jerusalem, in which the Great Synedrim was always to sit: Therefore it is still said, in Deut. 17. Thou shalt go to the place that God shall choose, as well as that they should go to the Judge, or to the Priest; because it was God's promise to be in that place, and with the Court sitting there; and therefore also it is said, If they should not do according to the Sentence of the Priest, that standeth before the Lord. And if they shew us any one place that God hath so peculiarly Sanctified, and set up such a Court as the Papists would pretend to do, then it would be a pattern, or else not. But God hath not Sanctified any place now, therefore the pattern will not hold. It may much better, in a Type, be Transferred to the general Assembly in Heaven, even to which we under the Gospel are come, or to the General Judgment of the Great Day, when all causes shall be judged over again.

13. Neither were all causes Ecclesiastical, brought to this Synedrim; therefore it is said, Thou shalt bring all Causes within thy Gates, not all causes in God's House. Therefore the High Priest is said to be over the House of God, and the charge of that House belonged unto the Priests; and there were three Rulers over the House of God. Therefore to the Synedrim belonged Judicials, and such Ceremonials, as did not appertain to the Temple, as the cutting off of a Man, that had Leaven in his House, Exod. 12. But yet the ceremonial belonged to the Temple, and the Priests themselves were Judges thereof. And the Order of Priests and Levites had a peculiar power to Judge of Leprosie, and of Persons that were unclean, and to keep them out of the Temple, Levit. 10. 10, 11. Ezek. 44. 23. Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13. therefore the Priests of the Temple put out Ʋzziah, when he was struck with the Leprosie. So Christ answerably speaks, Matth. 8. 4. Go shew thy self to the Priest, saith Christ, to the Man that he cured of the Leprosie, that he might judge of it, whether he were whole or no. Neither were there any Persons that we read of, but those that were Priests, that were to do this. Yea, the Leprosie was so infectious, that there was no Warrant or Promise, that any that converst with, or came to a Leper should be kept from it, but only the Priest. And in Numb. 3. 7. they were to keep the whole charge about the Tabernacle of the Congregation: And in Ezek. 44. 27, they were to look to the Sabbath. Now it is evident, that others, besides the Priests, made up that Great Court at Jerusalem,

14. If that this were the pattern, then the Church in each Village or City, now should have an immediate and intire Government within themselves; and so it would suit the Congregational Government. For each Town in Judea had Elders in their Gates; in the smaller there were three to judge their causes, in the greater Cities there were Twenty three.

p. 17315. The number of the Persons were all set, they were Seventy, So that in the conclusion, we may say as Paul of those of the Circumcision, and observing the Law that they themselves keep not the Law, so nor those that were the Analogy of the Jewish pattern, here being these so great, so essential, and many differences between the Jewish and Presbyterial Government, so now for a National Assembly.

And if it be said by them, we urge not the identity, that it should be the same: We reply 1. Why not the identity in things that were not ceremonial (for such they pretend to make a pattern) but matters of meer Order and Policy, fuited to them, as to a National Church, and that by God's Institution, If they make the Institution of God the pattern in one thing, why not in another? 2. If it be only a meer Analogy, they themselves might shew some other Warrant, first, for the like things Instituted anew, by Christ under the New Testament, which being so Instistituted, do bear Analogy with what was under the Old. For otherwise it's left unto the pleasure of Man to take and refuse what he pleaseth, and set it up as Analagous to the Old; and so others may set up other things, and indeed pick another form of Government out of other things, that were Analagous to the Government of that pattern. As when they argue out of Matth. 18. that Christ Alludeth to the Courts that were then in Jury, where he saith, Go tell the Church, and urged the Analogy to hold in this; that as their Courts which were called Ecclesiae, were a Colledge of Elders and Judges, and that therefore, the Church, that Christ means under the New Testament, must be a consistory of Elders, and National Assemblies (as the lesser and greater Synedrim was distinct, and apart from the People) we have just reason to reply, why should the Analogy hold in this only, unless the New Testament hold forth that the Assembly of a company of Elders, apart from the People, are called a Church? If that were first found, then indeed this Analogy might be applyed thereunto; but to pick and choose out one piece of the Model, and leave out the rest, and to say that Christ intends this, rather than the rest, without a special Warrant of his so to do, but Humane and Arbitrary, under the colour of Divine Institution.

To us this is an infallible Rule, that where God hath applyed a Type, or any thing out of the Old Testament, to an Institution under the New, we should so far be led by it, as he hath in his or that particular applyed it; for otherwise the Analogy of those chief Priests, which are called foreign Overseers, as the Septuagint rendreth it, Psal. 109, 8, Acts 1. 20. Zech. 11. 14, 22. would hold for the Order of Bishops, by way of Analogy, as strong as any Argument can be framed from the Analogy of their Courts, to the like Ecclesiastical now,

It is urged by some, that that which belonged to that Church, as a Church, is Moral in all Ages (as that which belongs to a Child, as he is Animal rationale, belongs to a Man, though what agreeth to him as a Child, agrees not to all Men; but what agrees to a Child, as it is Animal rationale, is common to all Men) now this Government, say they, did not belong to the Church as Jewish, and as in its Infant condition, in a Typical respect, but as a politick National Church,

We answer 1. That their being a National Church was in a typical respect; and therefore all their Laws, Ceremonial, Judicial, Moral, the Laws that were given the State, were given by God; Jus civile judaicum pars Theologiae fuit, The Jews Civil Law, was part of their Divinity. And therefore the Common-wealth of Israel is called the Church; and in 2 Pet. 1. Peter, speaking to the Saints, saith, applying the type, you are a Holy Nation, a Royal People, he speaks not to them, as they were a Nation under a Government, one National Church, although he Writes to the Jews that were Disperst over many Provinces, 1 Pet. 1. 1. Totus status illius populi fuit figuralis, Aquinas, prima secundae Quaest. 104. Art. 2.

Yea, 2. That great Synedrim, at Jerusalem, seems to have a typical Respect upon it, it being restrained to the place that God should choose, and was a type of the General Assembly in Heaven, or at the Day of Judgment; for to that Assembly, doth Christ seem to Allude, when he saith, they shall sit upon twelve Thrones, Judging the twelve Tribes of Israel; and the great Synedrim, at Jerusalem, was only that Court that did Judge the twelve Tribes, and no other Court besides.

3. There was that peculiar ground of the Jews, being a National Church (which was the main ground, why God made them a National Church) as is compatible to p. 174no Nation under Heaven; they were a National Church, not only as Men living under the same Government, and under the same Prince, and in the same Land, or of the same Language; but chiefly and principally, as they were the Children of Abraham, to whom the promises were made as to one common Father, whose Seed did grow up into a Nation, whom God did sever from all other Nations as such, and made a Nation of them, dwelling alone, so as they were not to Marry out of their own Nation. And herein Abraham was Christ's type, Jesus Christ being now the Father of all the Faithful in all Nations, who are become one Royal Nation unto him; but a Royal Nation Spiritually, and a Royal Kindred, although out of several Nations, but not as formed into a National Government. And when they did grow up into a Nation, then God gave them Laws for the Government of them as a Nation, God did Institute them to a National Church and Kingdom, and made a new Covenant with them, and gave them Laws. And if now under the Gospel, we should come to a National Church, and have a like Government, it may have an Institution under the New Testament, as that had then.

And there is likewise this difference between our Churches under the Gospel, and that of the Jews, that the prima notio, the first Notion of a Church fell upon them, as they were a Nation; but now doth not fall upon the Saints, as they are a Nation in that sense that they were; but it falls either upon the Church Universal, which is the Church Mystical, or upon Congregational, but upon none Qua Nation, as it did upon them; and therefore their being a National Church, was a type of the Universal, and not of this or that particular Nation, now Qua Nation; but we can shew too, that Qua Nation, they were the type of particular Churches and Congregations.

5. There is a great Fallacy in this Argument. It is true, that that which agreeth to a Church, Qua talis as such, is in every Church that is such; and so what was in that Church as National, purely so considered, may be, and ought to be in any other Church that is National in a political respect, as whatsoever belongeth to a Man, Qua rationalis, belongeth to every Man: When therefore it is said, this Government did belong to it, Qua Church, so we deny it, for it belonged only to it, Qua National Church in the general, and hath many specifical differences annexed. There is a Church National, such indeed was the Jews; and there is a Church Congregational, and such are those under the New Testament; there is a Church Universal, which is the Church Mystical: But what belongs to the Church of the Jews, as National, and cast into a Kingdom, will not belong to the Church Universal, nor will it belong to the Church Congregational, for it belongs to it only as National; and so we might as well argue, that what belongs to one Species under a genus, belongs to the other Species, or that what belongs to a Man, Qua animal rationale, should belong to a Beast, because he also is Animal. So that this remaineth first to be proved, that Jesus Christ hath made National Churches under the New Testament, to be polilitick Bodies; and then the Argument might have some shew in it, that what belongs to a Church, as a National Church, should belong to a National Church under the New Testament, for matter of Government. But otherwise it may as well be argued, that what Form of Government agrees to a Kingdom, as a Body politick, must be found in every Corporation; and that the same Government must be in the one, that is in the other (whereas a Body politick is the genus, as also Church is, and National, Presbyterial, &c. are but Specifical differences annexed) and also that what belongs to the Common-wealth of Venice, as an Aristocratical Common-wealth, must belong to all Common-wealths, whereas there are Common-wealths that are Monarchical, which we call Kingdoms, others that are Democratical, and what belongs to the one, with these differences, belongs not to the other. What belongs simply to a Monarchy, as a Monarchical Common-wealth, must not be said to belong to a Democratical Common-wealth. In a Monarchy, there are differing degrees of Marquesses, and Earls, and Lords; it will not therefore follow, that in a Democracy, or in a Common-wealth, whose Government is by several Hance Towns, there should be the same too.

6. And if Christ had appointed National Churches under the New Testament in a political Respect, it was not necessary that the Analogy of the Jewish Government should be observed; no more than that, in every Kingdom and Common-wealth, the Analogy of the Jews political Government should also be observed. And the Analogy p. 175too, might be kept and observed in its proportion, in every Congregational Church, as the Analogy of the three Estates, in the Superiour Court in Parliament, is shadowed out in many Corporations, where there is the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-Council; but it is not necessary, that there should be the same Subordination of Courts, all keeping the same Analogy as was amongst the Jews: For Churches depending immediately upon the Magistrates, in every Kingdom, might be well governed, as we see the Church in Geneva is and the Helvetians are. But we answer.

7. Whereas the Argument runs, that that Government was not ceremonial, suppose that their having such a Form of Government with Courts of Appeals, having Judicature in them, were not typical and ceremonial, yet it will not follow, that the like must be in the Churches in Nations, under the Gospel: Therefore Gersom Bucerus Distinguisheth, that some things were meerly ceremonial; and they were De guber. Eccl. p. 51cut off, other things were perpetually Moral, and other things, though they were not ceremonial, yet they did peculiarly serve to the conservation of that policy, and were annexed for order's sake, to the preservation of what was ceremonial. Now that National Synedrim, was of that latter sort; for suppose it were not ceremonial altogether; yet that Church being constituted a National Church, as a politick Body Ecclesiastical, it must have a National Synedrim, that was suitable and answerable. For if we suppose a National Church, it must have a National Government proportionable to it, and Officers accordingly: And so that there should be those Heads of the Priests, and that imparity accordingly amongst the Priests, was a thing proper to the policy of the Levites, and yet not typical; for multitudes of them meeting in their ranks and courses, for the Service of the Temple, it was necessary that there should be one that should order those Multitudes of them, that in their courses came up.

It must be acknowledged, that what ever constitution of Churches as politick Bodies, Jesus Christ hath made, he hath took a suitable order, for the preservation of order among them: So having made congregational Churches those politick Bodies, he hath taken order for the Government of them as such. And if he had made Churches National, as politick Bodies; he would have took suitable order for them also, as he did among the Jews, and he would have done it afore such time, as Churches were multiplyed, so as to come up to a Nation; for so he did with the Church of the Jews, afore they came into the Land of Canaan, but so he hath not done in the New Testament, nor did the Apostles live to see it setled; and it were strange that that Form should be erected by Christ, that the Apostles lived not to see.

So that the conclusion of all, it must be this, that Jesus Christ did still suit the Government of his Church, to the condition of the matter, thus the Church, when in Families, had a Family Government; and when a Nation was singled out and chosen, it had a National Government; but the Saints being to be disperst over all Nations (as the Jews themselves were, when they had their Synagogues disperst) he hath Established a Government answerable.

A Church is said to be National, either 1. In respect of the Members, that all, that are of the Nation, are Members of the Church, which was the constitution of the Jewish Church: Or 2. In respect of Government, that because they are a Nation, they are cast therefore into a National Government. Now indeed, the National Government of the Jews did follow upon their National constitution of Members; and answerably under the Gospel, even in Nations, the Government of Christ's Church doth follow the condition of the Members. Now the condition of those that are Saints (which are only fit to be Members of Churches) is to be scattered up and down, and to be few; for they are Redeemed out of Nations: There are few Cities in England will afford more Saints, than will make one Church, but London. So as the reason, why, that under the Gospel, there is not this National Government for Churches, is because a Nation comes not up to Christ's terms, and if it should, there are other respects that make the alteration; for it was fit that the Body of the Saints, the People, should have interest of presence, and of a virtual concurrence, and of edification; yea, of suffrage in the Government. It was for the Honour of the Saints, that are come out of their Nonage, that it should be so, and that Worship and Government, and communion in both, should be commensurable; God loving more the Spiritual communion, that Saints have in publick Worship p. 176under the Gospel, than the National Sacrifices under the old Law; and did therefore cast the Government under the Gospel thus, to attain this end, without which, it could not be attained; and also, because that Churches, as Churches, would be more sweetly ordered by the Law of communion of Churches without Jurisdiction, than by a Jurisdiction placed in combination of many Churches over each, seeing that Government could not be transacted in the presence of the Saints, but by delegated Messengers, and Representative Elders.