Thesis 13

13. THESIS.

As for that which is commonly said by the Patrons of Toleration, that what the Judges, Magistrates, Kings of Israel and Judah, did in a coercive way in matters of religion in Israel and Judah, they did it not by virtue of their office as ordinary Kings and Magistrates towards their subjects, but as Kings in a peculiar and extraordinary notion, as typical 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 typical, which no Kings nor people under heaven at this day are, and that therefore their practices 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 main strength of the Sectaries discourse upon this subject hangs by this string, and this thread runs all along throughout their works. M. S. the Bloudy Tenet, The Ancient Bounds or Liberty of Conscience Stated, The Storming of Antichrist with many others place all their confidence here, and this is their shield and buckler, making much use of this typicalness under the Old Testament to evade all the instances of Kings and Magistrates brought from there.

First, to make this good, there are some things supposed or asserted for proof very uncertain, doubtful, other things absurd and untrue; as first, that to be a type of Christ is a sufficient ground of a political civil power over the Church, and that typicalness, qua, typicalness gives those persons a power, who otherwise have none; the contrary to which is in several reasons proved by Doctor 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, that he who was Head of the State was Head also of the Church in a typical way, whereas many great divines are of another judgement, and show that the Kings of Judah and the civil judicatures were formally distinct from the ecclesiastical, and that he who was chief in the State over civil matters, was not chief Judge and Officer in the Church in an ecclesiastical and spiritual notion, of which point Master Rutherford and Master Gillespie having written so fully lately, I shall spare to speak any thing, and refer the Reader to their learned books entitled *The Divine Right of Church Government*, *Aarons Rod Blossoming*.

Thirdly, that the people of the Jews were interchangeably a Church and a Nation, so that whoever was a member of the Church was a member of the Commonwealth, and vice versa, of which see the Book entitled The Ancient Bounds or Liberty of Conscience Seated, page 60. Now Master Gillespie in his Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1, chapter 2, proves strongly that the Jewish Church was formally distinct from the Jewish State, and that in seven particulars, as in respect of distinct laws, distinct acts, distinct officers, so in respect of distinct members, there being members of the Church among them, who had the name of Proselytes of Justice, and were initiated into the Jewish religion by circumcision, sacrifice, etc., that nevertheless were restrained and secluded from dignities, government and preferment in the Jewish Commonwealth, and from divers marriages 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[s] diceretur, non tam quidem, ci[v]is Iudaicus simpliciter censendus esset quam peregrinus sempe[r], cui jura quamplurima inter cives. Secondly, how do they prove that Jehu, Joash, Manasseh, Asa, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, were types of Christ, and did execute typically the kingly office of Christ in his Church, were kings in an ecclesiastical notion and extraordinary way, not ruling only for the Church, but in the Church, and over it, as they say. Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, were in their persons, places and actions, express types of Jesus Christ (as it is 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 Reformed divines have shown against the Arminians and Erastians, but that Asa, Josiah, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat were, is gratis dictum, not yet proved, neither were these pen-men of holy Scripture, or prophets extraordinarily inspired, but these four great reformers as kings were stirred up, inquiring after, and directed by prophets, as the reader may find clearly in the stories of them in the Chronicles and Kings. Besides I find not among divines who have written of the types of Christ, or who grant Moses, David, Solomon to be express types, that they make Asa, Josiah, etc. 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 ranks and orders of men, as the first-born, kings, prophets, etc. Now though all of the first sort are special particular types of him, so that the special things done by them do typify and set forth Christ in many particulars of his person, actions and sufferings: yet the ranks and orders of men as the first-born, kings, prophets, may not be typical in all the particular persons of those ranks and orders, at least to the particular acts they do in those ranks and orders. But it is 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, etc., 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, Jehoash, Ammon, Jeroboam, etc. were types of Christ, and did execute his kingly office, who yet were commended, namely the two first, for destroying false worship, and reproved for not doing it constantly. Besides, could those kings of Israel and Judah (who yet were lawful kings) that apostatised from all the whole worship of God, the ceremonial law that ordained the types, that destroyed God's service and the priesthood, made priests of the lowest of the people, be types of Christ? And I desire to be resolved by M. S. the author of The Ancient Bounds of Liberty of Conscience Stated, whether any wicked men were special types of Christ, and whether all persons who were types of Christ were not saved. Thirdly, suppose these kings of Judah were types of Christ in setting on the throne of David, and ruling over Judah, in Christ the King of his Church coming out of their loins, yet they were temporal kings, had civil authority. Now how does it appear that what they did in punishing idolatrous priests, commanding their subjects to the true worship of God, they did only as types by virtue of that notion, and not as they were temporal kings, which must be proved before their examples can be made null. And I am sure the Scripture no where says that the kings of Judah and Israel in what they commanded in matters of religion, they did as types of Christ, and not as civil magistrates. It is one thing to be a type, and another thing to do such things merely as types. And what if Christian magistrates leaning upon this broken staff, suffering all heresies, blasphemies and idolatries in their kingdoms, Christ at the last day when they stand before the judgment seat, they objecting for themselves that the kings of Israel and Judah were types of Christ and all they did was by virtue of their typical notion, shall 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 than apocryphal notions, such distinctions of which God in his Word never gave any foundation? But besides the apocryphalness of this notion, that these kings reformed religion not merely as types, but as kings and princes over subjects, may be proved thus.

First, because magistrates before them, and magistrates of other commonwealths did so, as is largely shown in the twelfth Thesis.

Secondly, types were not ordained by the political or moral law, as magistrates and their authority, but by the ceremonial law.

Thirdly, for that which they say the Kings of Israel, the Jews and their Land were Types of, and that which by their Kings punishing Idolaters and Seducers was typified, namely spiritual censures under the Gospel of Excommunication 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 civil state, but of the spiritual and ecclesiastical government by Church Officers; so the Land of Canaan was a Type of heaven, not as it contained the civil state, but the Church; it being a Type of Heaven before they had possession of it, or their civil state and government set up, and yet no Type of Heaven till the people of God had a promise of it, [illegible] 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 Judah, and that not only for ceremonial uncleannesses, but for moral and scandalous sin [illegible], all which is fully proved by Master Gillaspie at large in his A[illegible]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 typified Christ's kingly office, yet this cannot enervate the examples of these Kings, unless doing things as a Type, and as a moral 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 typify special works of Christ, and yet those very actions may be moral and binding all in such relations whose persons nor actions can in no kind be judged typical, 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, and 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 virtue of a moral command. And for the better understanding of this, let the Reader consider that in some persons the same actions may be both typical and moral, extraordinary in regard of the manner and some circumstances, and ordinary in regard of the matter and substance, typical as typifying Christ and what he should do, and yet moral 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 typical, yet they may be moral too, and so binding, which though as they were typical they may be taken away, yet as they were moral may be in full force. As for example, Christ was figured in Joseph, Joseph was an eminent Type of Christ in the first rank of Types as a singular person typifying him, not as a rank or order of men by office only as those kings of Judah spoken of, and among other things he was a Type in feeding his Father and his Brethren, that when advanced in the kingdom he provided for, and nourished his Father's house, which typified Jesus Christ feeding the Family of God, and preserving the Church alive. Now though Joseph in this action was a Type of Christ, and did it typically, yet not only typically, but did this morally and naturally too by virtue of the fifth Commandment, and sixth Commandment, of children's duty to their Parents, and of preserving life; and by virtue of this example of Joseph 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 Joseph's condition should have Father and Brethren in want, whom he should neglect, and being pressed by Joseph's example to provide for them, he should answer Joseph's practice was nothing to him, for he was a Type of Christ, and typified Christ's feeding of his Church not with temporal food only, but with the Manna from Heaven, the word and Sacraments, I ask of those who plead this Argument of typicalness, whether this were a good Answer? And if not, neither is theirs against the practice of the kings of Judah from being Types of Christ; and I wish the Pleaders for Toleration would seriously consider of, and resolve this Question, though Joseph was a special Type of Christ, and in this action of preserving his Father and Brethren a Type of Christ's preserving his Church, yet whether this action of his to his Father, Brethren and their children, do not bind now in the days of the Gospel children to their Fathers &c. or whether the typicalness of it has caused it to cease? And in the resolution of this case, the ingenuous Reader may see what to judge of the typicalness of the kings of Judah, and that typicalness 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 typical. The Prophets and prophetical office were Types of Christ as well as the kings of Judah; and yet actions they did that were some way typical and extraordinary, bind Christians under the Gospel for the substance and matter, and are set before them for example, as Elijah a Type, and in his Prayer a Type, yes somewhat in it extraordinary, is by James propounded in prayer as a pattern and a proof of effectual fervent prayer to righteous men under the Gospel (James 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, Jacob, Gideon, Jephthah, &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 12:1, 2). I could give many more instances of Types and extraordinary persons, whom in moral practical things, matters of faith, holiness, righteousness (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 evil doers (which Blasphemers, Heretics, and Schismatics are) the commanding good, being moral-practical things of perpetual 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 Judah about typicalness be good, by the same reason it may hold against Magistrates punishing under the Gospel for matters of the second Table, murder, adultery, &c. For may not the Socinians and Anabaptists, who deny Christian Magistrates may punish capitally for murder, 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 typical, which no Magistrate nor people are now, and whatever can be said upon this ground against Princes meddling in matters of religion, may as well be said against their punishing in civil 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 Bloody Tenent 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. Yes, by this ground whatever shall be brought out of the Old Testament to show the duty of Magistrates, or the qualifications of them, as that they that rule over men must be just, fearing God, hating covetousness, courageous, &c. it may be answered, that was required of those who were typical, and their people typical, 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 fear of God, &c. because the first-born, such Fathers and Masters of families were typical, and their children typical, which Fathers are not under the Gospel.

Sixthly, if this answer of typicalness may hold, all those Kings and Princes actions and practices in other things of moral particular duties, as prayer, mourning for sin, 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, Josiah, 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 David's praying so often and constantly, and of mourning for his sins, 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 commanded, or sin spoken against in any of these, are at once made void: for it may be said the penmen were types, and given to a typical people, written in a typical land. It may be said of the whole Moral Law, that as Moses in his person was a type of Christ in many particulars, so in delivering the Law he shadowed Christ the Mediator, Moses being a mediator between God and his people in giving the Law (Galatians 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 (namely, the Oracles of God) committed to the Jews and the Circumcision (Romans 3:2; Romans 9:4), which people and Nation of Israel were typical of the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). So the Land of Canaan was typical of rest from [illegible], and of true rest, and the heavenly inheritance (Hebrews 4:1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11). And indeed what was not typical some way or other in the Jewish Church and State, as the first-born, 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 heretics whatever, Socinians, Antinomians, Familists, &c. may evade any Scripture brought from there, as well as the pleaders for Toleration the examples of the Kings of Israel and Judah.

8ly. All the actions and practices done by persons and things typical are so far 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 types for the admonitions and example of those in like cases under the New, and did teach to the uttermost, as the 1 Corinthians 10 from the sixth verse to the twelfth, and that clause of promise in the fifth Commandment, That your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you, is meant of the land of Canaan a typical 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 (Ephesians 6:1, 2, 3) fully shows. Saint Paul also tells us (Romans 15:4) that whatever things were written [illegible], were written for our learning, and so those magistrates and princes of Israel and Judah (however they might typify Christ's kingdom) they were such types spoken of in 1 Corinthians 10, namely 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 typify Christ's 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 moral grounds, and speaking nothing of them in their reformations as in a figurative typical 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 merely typical and fulfilled in the antitype, done only to represent and shadow forth what Christ was to do, and mixed actions, moral and typical 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 moral, not merely typical, will be found in the practices of those kings of Judah and Israel before named. As first, when their practices and ways are not barely related, but commended and praised by God, whereas actions merely typical are only related and set down, as in Samson, and divers others. Secondly, when done upon moral grounds and reasons, motives drawn from mercies, blessings, evils, and judgments, commands and messages from God, experiences of God, upon God's 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 typical, and whose actions are intended to be merely typical, 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 suitable to those qualifications, titles and descriptions given in Scripture of magistrates and that office in general. Fifthly, when what they do is agreeable and suitable 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 Josiah, 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 practice of the kings of Israel and Judah, which I have been the larger in, because so great a weight of this controversy on all the Sectaries' part lies on this typicalness both of the Jewish magistrates and people.