Chapter 1

Concerning the ancient Patriarchs; from these, some who would have Judaism to be but an intercision of Christianity derive the pedigree of Christians, affirming the difference between us and them to be solely in the name and not the thing itself: of this thus much at least is true, that the Law of Commandments, contained in Ordinances, did much more diversify the administration of the Covenant, before and after Christ, than those plain moralities wherewith in their days it was clothed: where the assertion is deficient, Antiquity has given its authors sanctuary from farther pursuit. Their practice then, were it clear, can be no president for Christians; all light brought to the Gospel, in comparison of those full and glorious beams that shine in itself, is but a candle set up in the sun. Yet for their sakes, who found out the former unity, I will (not following the conceit of any, nor the comments of many) give you such a bare narration, as the Scripture will supply me withal, of their administration of the holy things and practice of their religion: (as it seems Christianity, though not so called) and doubt you not of divine approbation and institution. For all prelacy, at least until Nimrod hunted for preferment, was de jure divino. I find then, that before the giving of the Law, the chief men among the servants of the true God did every one in their own families with their neighbors adjoining, of the same persuasion, perform those things which they knew to be required, by the law of nature, tradition, or special revelation (the unwritten word of those times) in the service of God, instructing their children and servants in the knowledge of their creed concerning the nature and goodness of God, the fall and sin of man, the use of sacrifices, and the promised seed (the sum of their religion) and moreover performing [illegible] things appertaining to God. This we have delivered concerning Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Jethro, Job, others. Now whether they did this, as any way peculiarly designed to it as an office, or rather in obedient duty to the prime law of nature, in which, and to whose performance, many of them were instructed and encouraged by divine revelation (as seems most probable) is not necessary to be insisted on. To me truly it seems evident, that there were no determinate ministers of divine worship before the Law, for, where find we any such office instituted, where the duties of those officers prescribed? Or were they of human invention? God would never allow, that in any regard, the will of the creature should be the measure of his honor and worship; but the right and exercise of the priesthood, say some, was in the firstborn; but a proof of this will be for ever wanting. Abel was not Adam's eldest son, yet if anything were peculiar to such an office, it was by him performed. That both the brothers carried their sacrifices to their father is a vain surmise. Who was priest then, when Adam died? Neither can any order of descent be handsomely contrived: Noah had three sons; grant the eldest only a priest — were the eldest sons of his other sons priests or no? If not, how many men, fearing God, were scattered over the face of the earth, utterly deprived of the means of right worship; if so, there must be a new rule produced, beyond the prescript of nature, whereby a man may be enabled by generation to convey that to others which he has not in himself. I speak not of Melchizedek, and his extraordinary priesthood; why should any speak where the Holy Ghost is silent? If we pretend to know him, we overthrow the whole mystery, and run cross to the Apostle, affirming him to be [illegible] without father, mother, or genealogy. For so long time then as the greatest combination of men was in distinct families (which sometimes were very great) — politics and economics being of the same extent — all the way of instruction in the service and knowledge of God was by the way of paternal admonition. For the discharge of which duty, Abraham is commended (Genesis 18:19), whereunto the instructors had no particular engagement, but only the general obligation of the law of nature. What rule they had for their performances towards God does not appear; all positive law, in every kind, is ordained for the good of community: that then being not, no such rule was assigned, until God gathered a people, and lifted up the standard of circumcision for his subjects to repair to. The world in the days of Abraham, beginning generally to incline to idolatry and polytheism, the first evident irreconcilable division was made between his people and the malignants, which before lay hid in his decree; visible signs and prescript rules were necessary for such a gathered Church. This before I conceive to have been supplied by special revelation.

The law of nature a long time prevailed for the worship of the one true God. The manner of this worship, the generalty had at first (as may be conceived) from the vocal instruction of Adam, full of the knowledge of divine things; this afterwards their children had from them by tradition; helped forward by such who received particular revelations in their generation; such as Noah, from there called a preacher of righteousness. So knowledge of God's will increased, until sin quite prevailed, and all flesh corrupted their ways; all apostacy for the most part begins in the will, which is more bruised by the fall, than the understanding. Nature is more corrupted, in respect of the desire of good, than the knowledge of truth; the knowledge of God would have flourished longer in men's minds, had not sin banished the love of God out of their hearts. The sum is, that before the giving of the Law, every one in his own person, served God according to that knowledge he had of his will. Public performances were assigned to none, further than the obligation of the law of nature, to their duty in their own families. I have purposely omitted to speak of Melchisedeck as I said before, having spoken all that I can, or dare concerning him, on another occasion. Only this I will add, they who so confidently affirm him to be Shem, the son of Noah, and to have his priesthood in an ordinary way, by virtue of his primogeniture, might have done well to ask leave of the Holy Ghost, for the revealing of that which he purposely concealed, to set forth no small mystery, by them quite overthrown. And he who of late makes him look upon Abraham and the four Kings, all of his posterity, fighting for the inheritance of Canaan; (of which cause of their quarrel the Scripture is silent) robs him at least of one of his titles, a King of peace; making him neither King nor peaceable, but a bloody grandsire, that either could not, or would not part his fighting children, contending for that whose right was in him, to bestow on whom he would. And thus was it with them in the administration of sacred things: there was no divine determination of the priestly office on any order of men: when things appertaining to God, were to be performed in the name of a whole family (as afterwards 1 Samuel 20:6.) perhaps the honor of the performance was by consent given to the first born. Further, the way of teaching others, was by paternal admonition: (so Genesis 18:19) motives thereunto, and rules of their proceeding therein, being the law of nature, and special revelation. Prescription of positive law, ordained for the good of community, could have no place, when all society was domestic. To instruct others (upon occasion) wanting instruction for their good, is an undeniable dictate of the first principles of nature; obedience to which, was all the ordinary warrant they had, for preaching to any beyond their own families, observed by Lot (Genesis 19:7.) though his sermon contained a little false doctrine, ver. 8. Again, special revelation leaves as great an impression on the mind of him to whom it is made, so an effectual obligation for the performance of what it directs to, the lion has roared, who will not fear; the Lord God has spoken, who can but prophesy (Amos 3:8). And this was Noah's warrant for those performances, from where he was called a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). Thus although I do not find any determinate order of priesthood by divine institution, yet do I not from there conclude with Aquin. 12. ae quest. 3. a 1 (if I noted right at the reading of it) that all the worship of God, I mean for the manner of it, was of human invention, yes, sacrifices themselves: for this will-worship as I showed before God always rejected, no doubt but sacrifices and the manner of them were of divine institution, albeit their particular original, in regard of precept though not of practice be to us unknown. For what in all this concerns us, we may observe that a superinstitution of a new ordinance, does not overthrow any thing that went before in the same kind, universally moral, or extraordinary; nor at all change it, unless by express exception, as by the introduction of the ceremonial law, the offering of sacrifices, which before was common to all, was restrained to the posterity of Levi. Look then what performances in the service of God, that primitive household of faith was in the general directed to, by the law of nature, the same regulated by Gospel light (not particularly excepted) ought the generality of Christians to perform, which what they were may be collected from what was fore spoken.