comparison of Christ with Moses from the equal necessity of forms of Government now which there is for other Societies from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures all other arguments are reducible to these three Heads Of these in their order First From the comparison of Christ with Moses they argue thus If Moses was faithfull in his house as a servant much more Christ as a Son now Moses appointed a particular form of Government for the Church under the old Testament therefore Christ did certainly lay down a form of Church Government for the New Testament To this I answer first Faithfulnesse implyes the discharge of a trust reposed in one by another so that it is said vers 2. he was faithful to him that appointed him Christs faithfulnesse then lay in discharging the Work which his Father laid upon him which was the Work of mediation between God and us and therefore the comparison is here Instituted between Moses as typical Mediator and Christ as the true Mediator that as Moses was faithfull in his Work so was Christ in his Now Moses his faithfulnesse lay in keeping close to the Pattern received in the Mount that is observing the commands of God Now therefore if Christs being faithfull in his office doth imply the setling any one form of Goverment in the Church it must be made appear that the serling of this form was part of Christs Mediatory Work and that which the Father commanded him to do as Mediator and that Christ received such a form from the Father for the Christian Church as Moses did for the Jewish To this it is said That the Government is laid upon Christs shoulders and all power in his hands and therefore it belongs to him as Mediatour Christ I grant is the King of the Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by the conduct of his Spirit but shall we say that therefore any one form of Government is necessary which is neither contained in his Laws nor dictated by his Spirit the main original of mistakes here is the confounding the external and internal Government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward Government of the Church of God which is intended of his internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men But withall I acknowledge that Christ for the better government of his Church and people hath appointed Officers in his Church invested them by vertue of his own power with an authority to preach and baptize and administer all Gospel-Ordinances in his own Name that is by his authority for it is clearly made known to us in the Word of God that Christ hath appointed these things But then whether any shall succeed the Apostles in superiority of power over Presbyters or all remain governing the Church in an equality of power is nowhere determined by the Will of Christ in Scripture which contains his Royal Law and therefore we have no reason to look upon it as any thing flowing from the power and authority of Christ as Mediator and so not necessarily binding Christians Secondly I answer If the correspondency between Christ and Moses in their work doth imply an equal exactnesse in Christs disposing of every thing in his Church as Moses did among the Jews then the Church of Christ must be equally bound to all circumstances of Worship as the Jews were For there was nothing appertaining in the least to the Worship of God but was fully set down even to the pins of the Tabernacle in the Law of Moses but we find no such thing in the Gospel The main Duties and Ordinances are prescribed indeed but their circumstances and manner of performance are left as matters of Christian-liberty and only couched under some general Rules which is a great difference between the legal and Gospel-state Under the Law all Ceremonies and Circumstances are exactly prescribed but in the Gospel we read of some general Rules of direction for Christians carriage in all circumstantial things These four especially contain all the directions of Scripture concerning Circumstantials All things to be done decently and in order All to be done for edification Give no offence Do all to the glory of God So that the particular circumstances are left to Christian-liberty with the observation of general Rules It is evident as to Baptism and the Lords Supper which are unquestionably of divine Institution yet as to the circumstances of the administration of them how much lesse circumstantial is Christ then Moses was As to circumcision and the pass-over under the Law the age time persons manner place form all fully set down but nothing so under the Gospel Whether Baptism shall be administred to Infants or no is not set down in expresse words but left to be gathered by Analogy and consequences what manner it shall be administred in whether by dipping or sprinkling is not absolutely determined what form of words to be used whether in the name of all three persons or sometimes in the Name of Christ only as in the Acts we read if that be the sense and not rather in Christs Name i. e. by Christs authority Whether sprinkling or dipping shall be thrice as some Churches use it or only once as others These things we see relating to an Ordinance of Divine Institution are yet past over without any expresse command determining either way in Scripture So as to the Lords Supper What persons to be admitted to it whether all visible professors or only sincere Christians upon what terms whether by previous examination of Church-officers or by an open profession of their faith or else only by their own tryal of themselves required of them as their duty by their Ministers whether it should be alwayes after Supper as Christ himself did it whether taking fasting or after meat whether kneeling or sitting or leaning Whether to be consecrated in one form of words or several These things are not thought fit to be determined by any positive command of Christ but left to the exercise of Christian-liberty the like is as to preaching the Word publike Prayer singing of Psalmes the duties are required but the particular Modes are left undetermined The case is the same as to Church-governwent That the Church be governed and that it be governed by its proper Officers are things of Divine appointment but whether the Church should be governed by many joyning together in an equality or by Subordination of some persons to others is left to the same liberty which all other Circumstances are this being not the Substance of the thing it self but onely the manner of performance of it 3. I answer That there is a manifest disparity between the Gospel and Jewish state and therefore Reasons may be given why all Punctilioes were determined then which are not now as 1. The perfection and
there is not the least evidence or foundation in Reason or Scripture for it For the LXX did not derive their power from the Apostles but immediately from Christ they enjoyed the same priviledges were sent upon the same message making way for Christs entertainment in the several Cities they went to yea all things were parallel between them and the Apostles in their mission unlesse any difference be made in the Cities they went to and their number So that there is no superiority of office in the Apostles above the LXX nor of power and jurisdiction over them their Commissions being the same And it seems most probable that both their missions were only temporary and after this the LXX remained in the nature of private Disciples till they were sent abroad by a new Commission after the Resurrection for preaching the Gospel and planting Churches For we see that the Apostles themselves were only Probationers till Christ solemnly authorized them for their Apostolical employment Matth. 28. 18. Iohn 20. 21. when their full Commissions were granted to them and then indeed they acted with a plenitude of power as Governours of the Church but not before Nothing can be inferred then for any necessary standing Rule for Church-government from any comparison between the Apostles and the LXX during the life of Christ because both their missiors were temporary and occasional Only we see that because Christ did keep up the number of the twelve so strictly that as the LXX were a distinct number from them so when one was dead another was to be chosen in his stead which had been needlesse if they had not been a distinct Order and Colledge by themselves it is thence evident that the Apostolical power was a superiour power to any in the Church and that such an inequality in Church-Officers as was between them and particular Pastors of Churches is not contrary to what our Saviour saith when he forbids that dominion and authority in his Disciples which was exercised by the Kings of the earth Matthew 20. 25. Luke 22. 25. which places because they are brought by some to take away all inequality among Church-Officers I shall so far examine the meaning of them as they are conceived to have any influence thereupon First then I say that it is not only the abuse of civil power which our Saviour forbids his Disciples but the exercise of any such power as that is And therefore the Papists are mistaken when from the words of Luke Vos autem non sic they conclude All power is not forbidden but only such a tyrannical power as is there spoken of For those words are not a limitation and modification of the power spoken of but a total prohibition of it for first the comparison is not between the Apostles and Tyrants but between them and Princes yea such as Luke câ—lls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed had Christ said The Kings of the earth abuse their authority vos autem non sic then it would have been onely a limitation of the exercise of power but the meer exercise of civil authority being spoken of before and then it being subjoyned but you not so it plainly implyes a forbidding of the power spoken of in the persons spoken to But say they the words used in Matthew are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import the abuse of their power which is forbidden But I answer first in Luke it is otherwise for there it is the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if the abuse be forbidden in one the use is in the other but secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the LXX is used frequently for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred by that word as Psalm 72. 7. He shall have dominion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm 110. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies in both which places it is spoken of christs Kingdom So in Genesis 1. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Replenish the earth and have dominion over it In all which places it is used simply for Dominion and not for Tyrannical Power It is not then the abuse of civil Power but the use of it which is here forbidden which will be more evident secondly from the importance of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and simply denyes what went before as when Cain expresseth his fear of being kill'd Genesis 4. 14. The Septuagint render Gods answer by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is not denyed only the manner of his death to be as Abels was but it is simply denyed and so Psalm 1. 4. the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wicked are not so So when Christ saith Matthew 19. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning it was not so it imports an absolute denyal of giving bills of divorce from the beginning Thirdly This no wayes answers to the scope of the Apostles contention which was meerly about Primacy and Power and not at all about the abuse of this Power So that by this place all affectation and use of a civil co active external power is forbidden to the Officers of the Church the power of the Church being only a directive voluntary power and is rather a Ministry then a Power as our Saviour expresseth there Matthew 20. 26. Luke 22. 26. But having thus excluded all Civil Power from the Governours of the Church as such I say secondly That this place doth no wayes imply a prohibition of all inequality among the Governours of the Church which is abundantly cleared by this reason because by the acknowledgement of all parties the Apostles had a Superiour power over the ordinary Pastors of Churches Now if the exercise of all Superiority had been forbidden this must have been forbidden too as implying plainly an exercise of authority in some over others in the Church And therefore Musculus thus explains the place Non exigit hoc Christus ut omnes in regno suo sint aequales sed nè quispiam cupiat magnus primus haberi videri It is not an inequality of Order but ambition which Christ forbids and therefore he observes that Christ saith not Let none be great among you and none first which should have been if all Primacy and Superiority had been forbidden and a necessity of an equality among Church-Officers but he that will be great among you let him be your Minister Let those that are above others look upon themselves as the servants of others and not as their masters For God never bestows any power on any for the sake of those that have it but for the sake of those for whom they are employed When men seek then their own greatnesse and not the service of the Church they flatly contradict this
so not in subordination to any other Tribe for they had the heads of their Fathers as well as others Exodus 6. 25. and although when they were setled in Canaan their habitations were intermixt with other Tribes in their forty eight Cities yet they were not under the government of those Tribes among whom they lived but preserved their authority and government intire among themselves And therefore it was necessary there should be the same form of government among them which there was among the rest The whole body of the Nation then was divided into thirteen Tribes these Tribes into their several families some say seventy which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Families were divided into so many Housholds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Housholds into persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the several persons were the several Masters of Families over the several Housholds were the Captains of 1000 and 100 50 10. Over the Families I suppose were the heads of the Fathers And over the thirteen Tribes were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Fathers of the Tribes of the Children of Israel Numb 32. 28. and we have the names of them set down Numb 34. 17 c. So that hitherto we find nothing peculiar to this Tribe nor proper to it as employed in the service of God For their several Families had their several Heads and Eleazar over them as chief of the Tribe And so we find throughout Numbers 2. all the Heads of the several Tribes are named and appointed by God as Eleazar was The only things then which seem proper to this Tribe were the superiority of the Priests over the Levites in the service of God and the supereminent power of the High Priest as the type of Christ. So that nothing can be inferred from the order under the Law to that under the Gospel but from one of these two And from the first there can be nothing deduced but this that as there was a superiority of Officers under the Law so likewise should there be under the Gospel which is granted by all in the superiority of Priests over Deacons to whom these two answer in the Church of God in the judgement of those who contend for a higher order by divine Institution above Presbyters And withall we must consider that there was under that order no power of jurisdiction invested in the Priests over the Levites but that was in the heads of the Families and ordination there could not be because their office descended by succession in their several Families Those who would argue from Aarons power must either bring too little or too much from thence Too little if we consider his office was typical and ceremonial and as High Priest had more immediate respect to God then men Heb. 5. 1. and therefore Eleazar was appointed over the several Families during Aarons life-time and under Eleazar his son Phinehas Too much If a necessity be urged for the continuance of the same authority in the Church of God which is the argument of the Papists deriving the Popes Supremacy from thence Which was acutely done by Pope Innocentius the third the Father of the Lateran Council who proved that the Pope may exercise temporall jurisdiction from that place in Deuteronomy 17. 8. and that by this reason because Deuteronomy did imply the second Law and therefore what was there written in Novo Testamento debet observari must be observed under the Gospel which according to them is a new Law All that can be inferred then from the Jewish pattern cannot amount to any obligation upon Christians it being at the best but a judicial Law and therefore binds us not up as a positive Law but only declares the equity of the thing in use then I conclude then That the Jewish pattern is no standing Law for Church-Government now either in its common or peculiar form of Government but because there was some superiority of order then and subordination of some persons to others under that government that such a superiority and subordination is no wayes unlawfull under the Gospel for that would destroy the equity of the Law And though the form of Government was the same with that of other Tribes yet we see God did not bind them to an equality because they were for his immediate service but continued the same way as in other Tribes thence I inferr that as there is no necessary obligation upon Christians to continue that form under the Jews because their Laws do not bind us now so neither is there any repugnancy to this Law in such a subordination but it is very agreeable with the equity of it it being instituted for peace and order and therefore ought not to be condemned for Antichristian The Jewish pattern then of Government neither makes equality unlawfull because their Laws do not oblige now nor doth it make superiority unlawfull because it was practised then So that notwithstanding the Jewish pattern the Church of Christ is left to its own liberty for the choyce of its form of Government whether by an equality of power in some persons or superiority and subordination of one order to another CHAP. IV. Whether Christ hath determined the form of Government by any positive Laws Arguments of the necessity why Christ must determine it largely answered as First Christs faithfulness compared with Moses answered and retorted and proved that Christ did not institute any form of Church Government because no such Law for it as Moses gave and we have nothing but general Rules which are applyable to several forms of Government The office of Timothy and Titus what it proves in order to this question the lawfulnesse of Episcopacy shewn thence but not the necessity A particular form how far necessary as Christ was the Governour of his Church the similitudes the Church is set out by prove not the thing in question Nor the difference of Civil and Church Government nor Christ setting Officers in his Church nor the inconvenience of the Churches power in appointing new Officers Every Minister hath a power respecting the Church in common which the Church may restrain Episcoâ—acy thence proved lawfull the argument from the Scriptures perfection answered VVE come then from the Type to the Antitype from the Rod of Aaron to the Root of Iessâ— from the Pattern of the Jewish Church to the Founder of the Christian To see whether our Lord Saviour hath determined this controversie or any one form of government for his Church by any universally binding act or Law of his And here it is pleaded more hotly by many that Christ must do it than that he hath done it And therefore I shall first examine the pretences of the necessity of Christs determining the particular form and then the arguments that are brought that he hath done it The main pleas that there must be a perfect form of Church-government laid down by Christ for the Church of God are from the