CHAP. III.

ANd now I come to the main Subject of the present Con∣troversie,* which is acknowledging a form of Government necessary, and the Governours of the Church perpetuall; Whether the particular form whereby the Church must be governed, be determined by any positive Law of God, which unalterably binds all Christians to the observation of it. By Church here, I mean not a particular Congregation, but such a Society which comprehends in it many of these lesser Congregations united together in one body under a form of Government. The forms of Government in controversie, the Question being thus stated, are only these two▪ the par∣ticular officers of several Churches, acting in an equality of Power, which are commonly called a Colledge of Presbyters; or a Superiour Order above the standing Ministry, having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it by vertue of a Divine Institution. Which order is by an Anto∣nomasia called Episcopacy. The Question now, is not, which of these two doth come the nearest to Apostolical practice, and the first Institution, which hath hitherto been the controversie so hotly debated among us; but whether either of these two forms be so setled by a jus divinum, that is, be so determined by a positive Law of God, that all the Churches of Christ are bound to observe that one form so determined, without varia∣tion from it: or whether Christ hath not in setling of his Church Page  171 (provided there be some form of Government, and a setled Ministry for the exercise of it,) left it to the prudence of every particular Church, consisting of many Congrega∣tions, to agree upon its own form which it judgdeth most conducing to the end of Government in that particular Church. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Here now we fix our selves, and the first thing we do, is to agree upon our wayes of resolution of this Question, whereby to come to an end of this debate. And the most probable way to come to an issue in it, is, to go through all the wayes whereon men do fix an unalterable divine Right, and to see whether any of these do evince a divine Right setled upon a positive Law or no, for one of these forms. The pleas then for such a divine Right are these: Either some formal Law standing in force under the Gospel, or some plain Institution of a New Law by Christ in forming his Church, or the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice, or the general sense of the Primitive Church, to which we shall add by way of Appendix, the Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation; if we go happily through these, we may content our selves with having obtain∣ed the thing we aim at.

The first inquiry then is, Whether any formal Law of God* concerning a form of government for his Church, either by persons acting in an equality of Power, or subordination of one Order to another, under the Gospel, doth remain in force or no, binding Christians to the observing of it. The Reason why I begin with this, is, because I observe the Dispu∣tants on both sides make use of the Pattern under the Law to establish their form by. * Those who are for Superiority of one Order above another in the government of the Church, derive commonly their first argument from the Pat∣tern under the Law. * Those who are for an equality of Power in the persons acting in government, yet being for a subordination of Courts, they bring their first argument for that, from the Jewish Pattern. So that these latter are bound by their own argument, though used in another case, to be ruled in this Controversie by the Jewish Pattern. For why should it be more obligatory as to subordination of Courts, then as to the superiority of Orders? If it holds in one case: Page  172 it must in the other. And if there be such a Law for Su∣periority standing unrepealed, there needs no New Law to inforce it under the Gospel. We shall therefore first enquire what foundation there is for either form in that Pat∣tern, and how far the argument drawn from thence is obliga∣tory to us now. For the practice then in the Jewish Church, That there was no universal equality in the Tribe of Levi which God singled out from the rest for his own service, is obvious in Scripture. For there we find Priests above the Levites; the family of Aaron being chosen out from the other families of Cohath (one of the three sons of Levi) to be employed in a nearer attendance upon Gods Service then any of the other families. And it must be acknow∣ledged, that among both Priests and Levites there was a Superiority; For God placed Eleazar over the Priests,*Elizaphan over the Cohathites, Eliasaph over the Gersho∣nites; Zuriel over the Merarites, and these are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the Rulers over their several families; for it is said of every one of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉he was Ruler over the house of his Father. Neither were these equal; for over*Eliasaph and Zuriel God placed Ithamar, over Elisaphan and his own family God set Eleazar, who by reason of his authority over all the rest, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the Ruler of the Rulers of Levi, and besides these there were under these Rulers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the chief Fathers of the several distinct families, as they are called Exodus 6. 25. Thus we briefly see the subordination that there was in the Tribe of Levi; the Levites first, over them the heads of the Families, over them the Rulers, or the chief of the heads, over them Ithamar, over both Priests and Levites, Eleazar; Over all, Aaron the High Priest.

There being then so manifest an inequality among them,* proceed we to shew how obligatory this is under the Go∣spel. For that end it will be necessary to consider, whether this imparity and Superiority were peculiarly appointed by God for the Ecclesiastical government of the Tribe of Levi, as it consisted of persons to be employed in the service of God, or it was only such an inequality and Superiority as was in any other Tribe. If only common with other Tribes, Page  173 nothing can be inferred from thence peculiar to Ecclesiasti∣call government under the Gospel, any more then from the government of other Tribes to the same kind of go∣vernment in all civil States. We must then take notice that Levi was a particular distinct Tribe of it self, and 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 govern∣ment intire among themselves. And therefore it was necessa∣ry 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these Families were divided into so many Hous∣holds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their Housholds into persons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 no∣thing 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 Dea∣cons,Page  174 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 ju∣risdiction 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, Page  175 that as there is no necessary obligation upon Christians to con∣tinue 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 notwithstand∣ing 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 sub∣ordination of one order to another.