the same consideration as Christ is our Head God is Christs Head namely as Christ is Mediator But that Kingdom which Christ hath as he is the eternal Son of God he holds it not in a subordination to God the Father but as being consubstantial with his Father and thinking it no robbery to be called equal with God So that in this consideration the Father is not greater then he Master Hussey pag. 37. saith of Christ in respect of the Government which he hath as Mediator He is as it were the Vicar of his Father I hope he will not say so of that Government which Christ hath as the eternal Son of God And pag. 27. he holds that Christ as Mediator is subject to God But in the consideration that Christ is the second person of Trinity so he is not inferior to God the Father So that he himself cannot but yeeld my Argument Sixthly If Christ hath a Kingdom in time dispensed and delegate to him and unto which he was anointed and hath another Kingdom which is not delegate nor in time dispensed nor he anointed to it but doth necessarily and naturally accompany the communication of the Divine nature to him by eternal generation then he hath two most different Kingdoms one as he is Mediator another as he is the eternal Son of God But Christ hath a Kingdom in time dispensed and delegate c. If you speak of Christ as Mediator God hath made him both Lord and Christ Act. 2. 36. but as he is the eternal Son of God he is not Dominus factus he is not made Lord and King no more then he is made the natural Son of God When the Psalmist speaketh of that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator he tels us of the anointing of Christ. Ps. 45. 6. The Scepter of thy Kingdom is a right Scepter vers 7. Thy God hath anointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse But we cannot say that Christ was anointed to that Kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God Seventhly If the Scripture holds forth a Kingdom which Christ hath over all creatures and another Kingdom which he hath over the Church onely then it holds forth the twofold Kingdom which I plead for and which Master Hussey denieth But the Scripture holds forth c. Christ as he is God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. exerciseth Soveraignty and Dominion over all things even as his Father doth Psal. 115. 3. Dan. 4 34 35. for his Father and he are one But as he is Mediator his Kingdom is his Church onely and he is over his own House Heb. 3. 6. You will say the word onely is not in Scripture I answer When we say that Faith onely justifieth the word onely is not in Scripture but the thing is Just so here For first David Solomon and Eliakim were types of Christ the King Now David and Solomon did raign onely over Gods people as their Subjects though they had other people tributaries and subdued So doth Christ raign over the House of Iacob onely Luk. 1. 32 33. The Lord shall give unto him the Throne of his Father David and he shall raign over the house of Jacob for ever Isai. 9. 7. Of the encrease of his Government and Peace there shall be no end upon the Throne of David and upon his Kingdom to order it Isa. 21. 22. I will commit the Government into his hand and he shall be a Father to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah and the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder 2. It was foretold and applied to the Church and people of God as a proper and peculiar comfort to the Church that Christ was to come and raign as a King Isai. 9. 6. Unto us a Child is born unto us a Son is given and the Government shall be upon his shoulder Zech. 9. 9. Rejoyce greatly O Daughter of Zion Shout O Daughter of Jerusalem Behold THY KING cometh unto thee Matth. 2. 6. Out of thee shall come a Governour that shall rule my people Israel 3. The Iews did generally understand it so That the Messias was to be the Churches King onely which made Pilate say to them Shall I crucifie your King And hence it was also that the wise men who came to enquire for Christ said Where is he that is born King of the Jews Matt. 2. 2. Eighthly That very place Eph. 1. 21 22 23. from which Master Coleman drew an Argument against us doth plainly hold forth a two-fold supremacy of Iesus Christ one over all things another in reference to the Church onely which is his body his fulnesse and to whom alone he is head according to that Text Of which more afterwards Ninthly The Apostle Col. 1. doth also distinguish this two-fold preeminence supremacy and Kingdom of Iesus Christ one which is universal and over all things and which belongeth to him as he is the eternal Son of God vers 15. 16. 17. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the first born of every creature For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers all things were created by him and for him And he is before all things and by him all things consist Another which is oeconomicall and particular in and over the Church and this he hath as Mediator vers 18. And he is the head of the body the Church who is the beginning the first born from the dead that in all things he might have the preeminence That vers 18. he speaketh of Christ as Mediator is not controverted But Mr. Hussey pag. 35. would fain make it out if he could that Christ as Mediator is spoken of vers 15. 16. 17. The Apostle indeed in that which went before did speak of Christ as Mediator But the scope of these three verses is to prove the God-head of Iesus Christ. Yea Mr. Hussey himself yeeldeth that as God and not as Mediator he did create the world How can he then contend that the Apostle speaketh here of Christ as Mediator and why doth he find fault with my exposition that the Apostle speaketh here of Christ as God Do not our Writers urge Col. 1. 16. 17. against the Socinians and Photinians to prove the eternal God-head of Iesus Christ because by him all things were created and he is before all things See Stegmanni Photinianismus disp 5. Quaest. 12. Becmanus Exercit. 4. and Exerc. 8. Where you may see that the Adversaries contend as Mr. Hussey doth that the Apostle vers 15. 16. 17. doth not speak of the person of Iesus Christ proving him to be true God but that he speaks of Christ as Mediator or in respect of his Office and of that dominion which Christ hath as Mediator So Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisner pag. 469. and that vers 15. 16. 17. ascribeth no more to Christ than
policy and how can it be imagined that mankind multiplying upon the earth should have been without headship superiority order society govenment And what wonder that the law of nature teach all Nations some government Hicrome observeth that nature guideth the very reasonlesse creatures to a kind of Magistracy Eightly If the Scripture hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate and in the heathen Magistrate then it is not safe to us to hold that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as Mediator But the Scripture doth hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate and in the Heathen Magistrate Ergo The proposition hath this reason for it because the Heathen Magistrate doth not hold his office of and under Christ as Mediator neither doth Mr. Hussey herein contradict me onely he holds the heathen Magistrate and his Government to be unlawful wherein he is Anabaptistical and is confuted by my first Argument As for the Assumption it is proved from divers Scriptures and namely these Rom. 13. 1. the powers that be are ordained of God which is spoken of heathen Magistrates Dan. 2. 37. Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory So saith Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar an Idolatrous and heathen King See the like Ier. 27. 6. Isa. 45. 1. God sent his servant the Prophet to anoint Hazael King over Syria 1 Kings 19. 15. Read to this purpose Augustine de civit Dei lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he saith that the same God gave a Kingdom and authority both to the Romans Assyrians Persians Hebrews and that he who gave the Kingdom to the best Emperors gave it also to the worst Emperors yea he that gave it to Constantine a Christian did also give it saith he to Iulian the apostate Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. speaking of the heathen Emperors of that time saith that they were from God à quo sunt secundi post quem primi ante omnes that he who had made them men did also make them Emperors and give them their power Ibid. cap. 33. Ut meritò dixerim noster est magis Caesar ut a nostro Deo constitutus so that I may justly say Caesar is rather ours as being placed by our God saith he speaking to the Pagans in the behalf of Christians Wherefore though there be huge and vast differences between the Christian Magistrate and the heathen Magistrate the former excelling the latter as much as light doth darknesse yet in this point of the derivation and tenure of Magistracy they both are equally interested and the Scripture sheweth no difference as to that point CHAP. VIII Of the Power and Priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiastical what it is not and what it is THe new notion that the Christian Magistrate is a Church-officer and Magistracy an Ecclesiastical as well as a civil administration calls to mind that of the Wise-man Is there any thing whereof it may be said See this is new it hath been already of old time which was before us Plato in his Politicus a little after the middle of that book tells me that the Kings of Egypt were also Priests and that in many Cities of the Grecians the supream Magistrate had the administration of the holy things Notwithstanding even in this particular there still appeareth some new thing under the Sun For Plato tells me again Epist. 8. that those supreme Magistrates who were Priests might not be present nor joyne in criminall nor capitall judgements lest they being Priests should be defiled If you look after some other President for the union of civil and ecclesiastical Government secular and spirituall administrations in one and the same person or persons perhaps it were not hard to find such presidents as our opposites will be ashamed to owne I am sure Heathens themselves have known the difference between the office of Priests and the office of Magistrates Aristotle de Repub. lib. 4. cap. 15. speaking of Priests saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is another thing then civil Magistrates He had said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a civil society hath need of many Rulers but every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is made by election or lot is not a civil Magistrate and the first instance he giveth is that of the Priests and so Aristotle would have the Priest to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler but not a civil Magistrate So de Repub. lib. 7. cap. 8. he distingu sheth between the Priests and the Judges in a Citty But to the matter I will here endeavour to make these two things appear 1. That no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall and namely the dispencing of Church censures doth belong unto the Magistrate nor may according to the word of God be assumed and exercised by him 2. That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church to receive appeals properly so called from all Ecclesiasticall Assemblies Touching the first of these it is no other than is held forth in the Irish Articles of Faith famous among Orthodox and Learned men in these Kingdoms which do plainly exclude the Magistrate from the administration of the Word and Sacraments and from the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven It is the unhappinesse of this time that this and other truths formerly out of controversie should be so much stuck at and doubted of by some Now that the corrective part of Church-Government or the censure of scandalous persons in reference to the purging of the Church and keeping pure of the ordinances is no part of the Magistrates office but is a distinct charge belonging of right to Ministers and Elders as it may fully appear by the Arguments brought afterwards to prove a government in the Church distinct from Magistracy which Arguments will necessarily carry the power of Church censures and the administration of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven into other hands then the Magistrates so I shall here strengthen it by these confirmations First Church-censures must needs be dispensed by Ministers and Elders because they are heterogeneous to Magistracy For first the Magistrate by the power which is in his hand ought to punish any of his Subjects that doe evil and he ought to punish like siâ—s with like punishments But if the power of Church-censures be in the Magistrates hands he cannot walk by that rule For Church-censures are onely for Church-members not for all Subjects 1 Cor. 5. 10. 12. Secondly Church-censures are to be executed in the name of Christ Matth. 18. 20. with vers 17 18. 1 Cor. 5. 4. and this cannot be done in his name by any other but such as have commission from him to bind and loose forgive and retain sins But where is any such commission given to the civil Magistrate Christian more then Heathen Thirdly Church-censures
an Heathen man and a Publican 6. This interpretation as it is fathered upon Grotius so it may be confuted out of Grotius upon the very place He expounds Tell it unto the Church by the same words which Drusius citeth è libro Musar declare it coram multis before many But is this any other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many spoken of 2 Cor 2. 6 a place cited by Grotius himselfe together with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. Now these were acts of Ecclesiasticall power and authority not simply the acts of a greater number He tels us also it was the manner among the Jewes to referre the businesse ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the assembly of those who were of the same way or followed the same rites the judgements of which multitude saith he seniores tanquam praesides moderabantur the Elders as Presidents did moderate He further cleares it out of Tertullian apol cap. 39. where speaking of the Churches or assemblies of Christians he saith ibidem etiam exhortationes castigationes censura divina c. praesident probati quique seniores Where there are also exhortations corrections and Divine censure c. all the approved Elders doe preside And is not this the very thing we contend for I hope I may now conclude that Tell the Church is neither meant of the civill Magistrate nor simply of a greater number but of the Elders or as others expresse it better of the Eldership or Assembly of Elders So Stephanus Scapula and Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Calvin Bucerus Illyricus Beza Hunnius Tossanus Pareus Cartwright Camero Diodati the Dutch annotations all upon the place Marlorat in Thesauro in the word Ecclesia Zanchius in 4. Praec pag. 741. Iunius Animad in Bell. Contr. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Gerhard loc theol Tom. 6. pag. 137. Meisuerus Disput. de regim Eccles. quaest 1. Trelcatius Instit. Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291. Polanus Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1. Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. 4. Whittaker de Ecclesia quaest 1. cap. 2. Danaeus in 1 Tim. pag. 246. 394. These and many more understand that neither the Magistrate nor the multitude of the Church nor simply a great number is meant by the Church Matth. 18. but the Elders or Ecclesiasticall senate who have the name of the Church partly by a Synâ—cdoche because they are a chief part of the Church as otherwhere the people or flock distinct from the Elders is called the Church Act. 20. 28. partly because of their eminent station and principall function in the Church as we say we have seen such a mans Picture when haply t is but from the shoulders upward partly because the Elders act in all matters of importance so as they carry along with them the knowledge and consent of the Church And therefore according to Salmeron his observation Tom. 4. part 3. Tract 9. Christ would not say Tell the officers or Rulers of the Church but Tell the Church because an obstinate offender is not to be excommunicate secretly or in a corner but with the knowledge and consent of the whole Church so that for striking of the sinner with the greater fear and shame in regard of that knowledge and consent of the Church the telling of the officers is called the telling of the Church partly also because of the ordinary manner of speaking in the like cases that which is done by the Parliament is done by the Kingdom and that which is done by the common Councell is done by the City Among the Jewes with whom Christ and his Apostles were conversant this manner of speaking was usuall Danaeus where before cited citeth R. David Kimchi upon Ose. 5. noting that the name of the house of Israel is often put for the Sanhedrin in Scripture T is certaine the Sanhedrin hath divers times the name Kabal in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek of the old Testament Which is acknowledged even by those who have contended for a kind of popular Government in the Church See Guide unto Zion pag. 5. Ainsworth in his Counterpoison pag. 113. CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18. THey that doe not understand Matth. 18. 17. of Excommunication are extreamely difficulted and scarce know what to make of that binding and loosing which is mentioned in the words immediately following v. 18. verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Erastus and Grotius understand it of a private brother or the party offended his binding or loosing of the offender Bishop Bilson understands it of a civill binding or loosing by the Magistrate whom he conceives to be meant by the Church vers 17. These doe acknowledge a coherence and dependance between vers 17. and 18. M r Prynne differing from them doth not acknowledge this coherence and expounds the binding and loosing to be ministeriall indeed but onely Doctrinall Some others dissenting from all these doe referre this binding and loosing not to a person but to a thing or Doctrine whatsoever ye shall bind that is whatsoever ye shall declare to be false erroneous impious c. Sutlivius though he differ much from us in the Interpretation of vers 15 16 17. yet he differeth as much if not more from the Erastians in the Interpretation of vers 18. for he will have the binding and loosing to be Ecclesiasticall and spirituall not civill to be Juridicall not Doctrinall onely to be Acts of Government committed to Apostles Bishops and Pastors he alloweth no share to ruling Elders yet he alloweth as little of the power of binding and loosing either to the Magistrate or to the party offended See him de Presbyteriâ—… Cap. 9. 10. So that they can neither satisfie themselves nor others concerning the meaning and the context For the confutation of all those Glosses and for the vindication of the true scope and sence of the Text I shall first of all observe whence this phrase of binding and loosing appeareth to have been borrowed namely both from the Hebrewes and from the Graecians The Hebrews did ascribe to the Interpreters of the Law Power authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loose So Grotius tells us on Mat. 16. 19. The Hebrews had their loosing of an Excommunicated person which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Buxtorf Lexic Chald. Talm. Rabbin pag. 1410. The Grecians also had a binding and loosing which was judiciall Budaeus and Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cite out of Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quum primo suffragio non absolutus fuerit reus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the stone by which the Senators did give their suffrage in judgement It was either a blacke stone by which they did bind the sinner and retaine his sinne and that stone
be previous admonitions and the party admonished prove obstinate and impenitent The eighth difference stands in their correlations The Correlatum of Magistracy is people embodied in a Common-wealth or a Civil corporation The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a Church or Spiritual corporation The Common-wealth is not in the Church but the Church is in the Common-wealth that is One is not therefore in or of the Church because he is in or of the Common-wealth of which the Church is a part but yet every one that is a Member of the Church is also a Member of the Common-wealth of which that Church is a part The Apostle distinguisheth those that are without and those that are within in reference to the Church who were notwithstanding both sorts within in reference to the Common-wealth 1 Cor. 5. 12 13. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power may be quite taken away by persecution or by defection when the Correlatum of the civil power may remain And therefore the Ecclesiastical and the civil power do not se mutuò ponere tollere Ninthly There is a great difference in the ultimate termination The Ecclesiastical power can go no further then Excommunication or in case of extraordinary warrants and when one is known to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost to Auathema Maranatha If one be not humbled and reduced by Excommunication the Church can do no more but leave him to the Judgement of God who hath promised to ratifie in Heaven what his Servants in his Name and according to his Will do upon Earth Salmasius spends a whole chapter in confuting the Point of the coactive and Magistratical Jurisdiction of Bishops See Walo Messal cap. 6. He acknowledgeth in that very place pag. 455 456 459 462 that the Elders of the Church have in common the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline to suspend from the Sacrament and to excommunicate and to receive the offender again upon the evidence of his repentance But the Point he asserteth is That Bishops or Elders have no such power as the Magistrate hath and that if he that is excommunicate do not care for it nor submit himself the Elders cannot compel him But the termination or Quo usque of the civil power is most different from this It is unto death or to banishment or to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment Ezra 7. 26. Tenthly They differ in a divided execution That is the Ecclesiastical power ought to censure sometime one whom the Magistrate thinks not fit to punish with temporal or civil punishments And again the Magistrate ought to punish with the temporal Sword one whom the Church ought not to cut off by the Spiritual Sword This difference Pareus gives Explic Catech. quaest 85. art 4. and it cannot be denied For those that plead most for Liberty of conscience and argue against all civil or temporal punishments of Hereticks do notwithstanding acknowledge that the Church whereof they are Members ought to censure and excommunicate them and doth not her duty except she do so The Church may have reason to esteem one as an Heathen and a Publican that is no Church-Member whom yet the Magistrate in prudence and policy doth permit to live in the Common-wealth Again the most notorious and scandalous sinners blasphemers murtherers adulterers incestuous persons robbers c. when God gives them repentance and the signes thereof do appear the Church doth not binde but loose them doth not retain but remit their sins I mean ministerially and declaratively Notwithstanding the Magistrate may and ought to do Justice according to Law even upon those penitent sinners CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of Iesus Christ a general Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God the Head of all Principalities and Powers raigning over all creatures and a particular Kingdom as he is Mediator raigning over the Church onely THe Controversie which hath been moved concerning the civil Magistrate his Vicegerentship and the holding of his Office of and under and for Jesus Christ as he is Mediator hath a necessary coherence with and dependance upon another Controversie concerning a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ one as he is the eternal Son of God raigning together with the Father and the holy Ghost over all things and so the Magistrate is his Vicegerent and holds his Office of and under him another as Mediator and Head of the Church and so the Magistrate doth not hold his Office of and under Christ as his Vicegerent Wherefore before I come to that Question concerning the origination and tenure of the Magistrate's Office I have thought good here to premise the enodation of the Question concerning the twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a distinction which Master Hussey cannot endure and no marvel for it overturneth the foundation of his opinion He looks upon it as an absurd assertion pag. 25. Shall he have one Kingdom as Mediator and another as God He quarrelleth all that I said of the twofold Kingdom of Christ and will not admit that Christ as Mediator is King of the Church onely pag. 25 26 27 35 36 37. The Controversie draweth deeper then he is aware of for Socinians and Photinians finding themselves puzzled with those arguments which to prove the eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ were drawn from such Scriptures as call him God Lord the Son of God also from such Scriptures as ascribe Worship and Adoration to him and from the Texts which ascribe to him a Supreme Lordship Dominion and Kingdom over all things For this hath been used as one Argument for the Godhead of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father The Father raigns the Son raigns the holy Ghost raigns Vide lib. Isaaci Clari Hispani adversus Varimadum Arianum Thereupon they devised this answer That Jesus Christ in respect of his Kingly Office and as Mediator is called God and Lord and the Son of God of which see Fest. Honnij Specimen Controv. Belgic pag. 24. Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisnerum pag. 436. and that in the same respect he is worshipped that in the same respect he is King and that the Kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth to Jesus Christ is onely as Mediator and Head of the Church and that he hath no such Universal Dominion over all things as can prove him to be the eternal Son of God This gave occasion to Orthodox-Protestant-Writters more fully and distinctly to assert the great difference between that which the Scripture saith of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God and that which it saith of him as he is Mediator and particularly to assert a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ and to prove from Scripture that besides that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator he hath another Kingdom over all things which belongs to him onely as he is the eternal Son of God This the Socinians to this day do contradict and stisly hold that Christ hath but one Kingdom which he exerciseth as
Mediator over the Church and in some respect over all things but by no means they admit that Christ as God raigneth over all things But our Writters still hold up against them the distinction of that twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. See Stagmanni Photinianismus Disp. 27. quaest 6. The same distinction of the twofold Kingdom of Christ as God and as Mediator is frequently to be found in Protestant Writers See Synops. pur Theol. Disp. 26. thes 53. Gomarus in Obad. vers ult The late English Annotations on 1 Cor. 15. 24. and many others Let Polanus speak for the rest See also the same distinction cleared and asserted by Master Apollonius in his Ius Majestatis circa sacra part 1. pag. 33. seq The Arguments to prove that distinction of the twofold Kingdom of Christ are these First Those Kingdoms of which the one is accessory and adventitions to the Son of God and which if it were not the want of it could not prove him not to be God the other necessarily floweth from his Godhead so that without it he were not God are most different and distinct Kingdoms But the Kingdom of Christ as Mediator and the Kingdom of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God are such Ergo If the Son of God had never received the Office of Mediator and so should not have raigned as Mediator yet he had been the natural Son of God for this could not be a necessary consequence He is the natural Son of God Therefore he is Mediator for he had been the natural Son of God though he had not been Mediator and though man had not been redeemed But if you suppose that the Son of God raigns not as God with the Father and the holy Ghost from everlasting to everlasting then you must needs suppose that he is not the natural and eternal Son of God Secondly Those Kingdoms of which the one is proper and personal to Jesus Christ God-man the other is not proper and personal but common to the Father and the holy Ghost are most different and distinct Kingdoms But the Kingdom of Jesus Christ as Mediator and his Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God are such Ergo That Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator by special dispensation of God committed to him is his alone properly and personally for we cannot say that the Father raigns as Mediator or that the holy Ghost raigns as Mediator But that Kingdom which Christ hath as he is the eternal Son of God is the very same consubstantially with that Kingdom whereby God the Father and God the holy Ghost do raign Thirdly He that hath a Kingdom which shall be continued and exercised for ever and a Kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised for ever hath two distinct Kingdoms But Jesus Christ hath a Kingdom which shall be continued and exercised for ever namely the Kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God and another Kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised for ever namely the Kingdom which he hath as Mediator Ergo The eternity of the one Kingdom is not doubted of But that the other Kingdom shall not be for ever exercised that is that Christ shall not for ever raign as Mediator is proved from 1 Cor. 15. 24 25. Master Hussey pag. 35 36 37. goeth about to answer this Argument which he confesseth to say something and indeed it saith so much that though he maketh an extravagant exception Doth it appear saith he that the Kingdom that he shall lay down to God his Father is not over all the world yet he plainly yeelds the Point which I was then proving Christ saith he in the day of Judgement shall lay down all the Office of Mediatorship I hope he will not say that Christ shall lay down at the day of Judgement that Kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God So then I have what I was seeking that Christ hath one Kingdom as Mediator another as the eternal Son of God And whereas Master Hussey holdeth that Christ as Mediator raigns over all things as the Vicar of his Father we shall see anon the weaknesse of his Arguments brought to prove it Mean while I ask What then is that Kingdom which belongs to Christ as the eternal Son of God and which shall not be laid down but continued for ever Let him think on this Argument Whatsoever belongs to that Kingdom which shall be continued for ever and shall not be laid down at the day of Judgement doth belong to Christ not as Mediator but as the eternal Son of God But the general Power and Dominion by which Jesus Christ exerciseth Soveraignty over all creatures without exception doing to them and fulfilling upon them all the good pleasure of his Will belongs to that Kingdom which shall be continued for ever and shall not be laid down at the day of Judgement Ergo That general Power and Dominion by which Jesus Christ exerciseth Soveraignty over all creatures without exception doing to them and fulfilling upon them all the good pleasure of his Will doth belong to Christ not as Mediator but as the eternal Son of God And thus I make a transition to another Argument Fourthly He that hath a Kingdom administred by and in Evangelical Ordinances and a Kingdom administred by his Divine Power without Evangelical Ordinances hath two different and distinct Kingdoms But Jesus Christ hath a Kingdom administred by and in Evangelical Ordinances and a Kingdom administred by his Divine power without Evangelical Ordinances Ergo Doth not Jesus Christ raign over the Devils and damned Spirits by his Divine Power reserving them in chains of darknesse to the Judgement of the great day But will Master Hussey say that Christ raigns over the Divels and damned Spirits as Mediator or by the same Kingdom by which he raigns in his Church by and in his Ordinances Therefore we must needs say That Christ hath one Kingdom as the eternal Son of God another as Mediator Fifthly He that hath a Kingdom in subordination to God the Father and as his Vicegerent and another Kingdom wherein he is not subordinate unto but equal with God the Father hath two most different Kingdoms But Jesus Christ hath a Kingdom in subordination to God the Father and another Kingdom wherein he is not subordinate unto but equal with God the Father Ergo The Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator doth in regard of the Office of Mediatorship constitute him in a subordination to his Father whose Commandments he executeth and to whom he gives an account of his Ministration So that though he that is Mediator being the eternal Son of God is equal with the Father yet as Mediator he is not equal with the Father but subordinate to the Father which our Divines prove from these Scriptures Isai. 42. 1. Behold my servant Jo. 14. 28. My Father is greater then I. 1 Cor. 11. 3. The Head of Christ is God In
Gualther or because no man hath parity or equality of honour with Christ So Martyr and Hunnius The English annotations say that Christ is the Head of every man in as much as he is the first begotten among many brtheren Which best agreeth with my second answer But for taking off all these and for preventing of other objections that one distinction will suffice which I first gave in examining Mr. Colemans Sermon In the Mediator Iesus Christ there is 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dignity excellency honour glory splendor 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his mighty power by which he is able to do in heaven and earth whatsoever he will 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Kingdom and Kingly-office or government Which three as they are distinguished in God Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory Why not in the Mediator also In the first two respects Christ as Mediator is over all things and so over all men and so over all Magistrates and all they in subjection to him But in the third respect the relation is onely between Christ and his Church as between King and Kingdom So that the thing in difference is that which Mr. Hussey hath not proved namely that Christ as Mediator doth not onely excell all things in glory and exercise a supreme power and providence over all things for his own glory and his Churches good neither of which is denied but that he also is as Mediator King Head and Governor of the Universe and hath not onely the government of his Church but all Civil government put in his hand When Mr. Hussey pag. 28. saith that I denyed pag. 43. what this distinction yeeldeth namely that Christ as Mediator exerciseth acts of divine power in the behalf and for the good of his Church it is a calumny for that which I denied pag. 43. was concerning the Kingdom not the power my words were these But as Mediator he is onely the Churches King Head and Governour and hath no other Kingdom Yea himsef pag. 26. speaking to these words of mine noteth that I did not say that as Mediator he hath no such power How commeth it to passe that he chargeth me with the denying of that which himself but two pages before had observed that I denie it not Well but pag. 43 he desires from me a further clearing of my distinction Kingdom power and glory and that I will shew from Scripture how it agreeth to Christ. I shall obey his desire though it was before easie to be understood if he had been willing enough to understand Solomon did excell all the Kings of the earth in wisedom riches glory and honour 2 Chron. 1. 12. and herein he was a type of Christ Psal. 89. 27. I will make him my first born higher then the Kings of the earth But as Solomon was onely King of Israel and was not by office or authority of Government a Catholique King over all the Kingdomes of the World nor all other Kings Solomons Vicegerents or Deputies So Iesus Christ as Mediator is onely the Churches King and is not King or Governour of the whole World nor Civil Magistrates his Vicegerents though he excell them all in dignity glory and honour Again David did subdue by power diverse States Provinces and Kingdoms and make them tributary But was David King of the Philistines and King of the Moabites and King of the Syrians and King of the Edomites because he smote them and subdued them 2. Sam. 8. Nay it is added in that very place vers 15. And David reigned over all Israel and David executed justice and judgement unto all his people And this is one argument to prove that those subdued and tributrary Territories were not properly under the government of Israel because Israel was not bound to extirpate Idolaters out of those lands but onely out of the holy land See Maimonides de Idolol cap. 7. sect 1. with the annotation of Dionysius Vossius So Christ who was set upon the throne of David doth as Mediator put forth his divine and irresistible power in subduing all his Churches enemies according to that Psal. 2 9. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron thou shalt dash them in peeces like a Potters vessel Rev. 17. 14. The Lamb shall overcome them for he is Lord of lords and King of kings But this vis major this restraining subduing power makes not Christ as Mediator to be King and Governour not onely of his Church but of the whole World beside Yea the power of Christ is over all things as well as all persons over all beasts fowles and fishes Heb. 2. 7. 8. compared with Psal. 8. 7. 8. Yea his power is over divells meant by things under the earth Phil. 2. 10. Wherefore it cannot be said that Christ as Mediator is King Head and Governour of all those whom he excelleth in glory or whom he hath under his power to do with them what he will It is a strange mistake when Mr Hussey pag. 43. objecteth against this distinction that a Kingdom without power and glory is a nominall empty thing Surely there may be a Kingly right and authority to governe where there is little either power or glory But this is nothing to my distinction which doth not suppose a Kingdom without power and glory nor yet power and glory without a Kingdom but onely that the Kingdom and Government is not to be extended to all those whom the King excelleth in glory for then one King that hath but little glory shall be subject to a King that hath much glory or over whom the King exerciseth acts of power for then the King shall be King to his and his Kingdomes enemies I verily beleeve that this distinction rightly apprehended will discover the great mistakes of that supposed universall Kingdom of Christ as Mediator reigning over all things and the Civil Magistrate as his Vicegerent CHAP. VI. Whether Jesus Christ as Mediator and head of the Church hath laced the Christian Magistrate to hold and execute his Office under and fo him as his Vicegerent The Arguments for the 〈◊〉 discussed MR. Hussey is very angry at my distinctions and arguments which I brought against Mr. Colâ—…mans fourth rule insomuch that in his Reply to me he spendeth very near two parts of three upon this matter from pag. 16. to 44. having past over sicco ped much of what I had said of other points in difference Come now therefore and let us try his strength in this great point He holds that Christ as Mediator hath placed the Christian Magistrate under him and as his Vicegerent and hath given him commission to govern the Church which if he or any man can prove from the Word of God it will go far in the decision of the Erastian controversie though this is not all which is incumbent to the Erastians to prove for as I first replied to Mr. Colemans fourth rule the Question is whether there be not some other government
the World Ibid. vers 22. to 30. Neither can the names of Jesus and Christ prove that what is said there must needs be meant of him as Mediator mark how well grounded Mr. Husseys arguments are Iesus sate at meat in Simon the Pharisees house Luke 7. 37. Iesus wept for Lazarus because he loved him Iohn 11. 35. 36. Must we needs therefore say that as Mediator he sate at meat in the Pharisees house and as Mediator he wept for Lazarus Christ is the Son of David Matth. 22. 42. Must we therefore say that as Mediator he is the Son of David Christ is God over all blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. Must we therefore say that this is meant of Christ onely as Mediator What is more ordinary then to use the names of Jesus and Christ when the thing which is said is meant in reference to one of the natures Secondly Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords even as Mediator not in Mr. Husseys sence as if Kings had their commission from Christ and did reigne in his stead as he is Mediator but in the sence of the Hebraisme Vanity of vanities that is most vain holy of holies that is most holy so King of kings and Lord of lords that is the most excellent glorious King of all others the excellency splendor dignity and majesty of Kings may be compared without any subordination Drusius Prâ—…terit lib. 8. upon this very place which Mr. Hussey objecteth saith that this forme of speech King of kings and Lord of lords was taken from the Persians and Assyrians who called a great King King of kings and Lord of lords Thirdly The Kingdom of Christ saith Mr. Hussey is aâ—… ample as his Prophecy but the Prophecie of Christ is extended to all Nations as may appear by the commission Gâ—… teach all Nations But 1. I throw back the argument Christs Kingdom and his Prophecie are commensurable therefore as his prophecie is not actually extended to all Nations except successively as the Gospel commeth among them so his Kingdom as he is Mediator is extended no further then the Church not to all Nations 2. His argument therefore is a miserable fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Christs prophecy is extended to all Nations successively and when the Gospel comes among them therefore his Kingdom is simply extended to all Nations and is not bounded within the Church onely Fourthly He tells us pag. 17. if kings may be called holy if their Offices may be accounted holy Offices or not sinful they must be held off and under Christ. Answ. If he mean holy in opposition to civil humane worldly secular I denie the office of kings to be holy if he mean holy in opposition to sinful unlawful unholy as it seems he doth then I confesse the office of Kings is lawful not sinful and themselves are holy when sanctified but this proves not that they hold their office of and under Christ more then carters or coblers hold their office of and under Christ I am far from making a paralel between the Magistrate and these but this I say Mr. Husseys plea for the Magistrate is no other than agreeth to these And where he addeth out of Calvin Kings have place in the Church and flock of Christ and are not spoiled of their Crown and Sword that they may be admitted into the Church this in reference to the conclusion he driveth at is no more than if he had argued thus carters and coblers have place in the Church and flock of Christ and are not necessitated to quit their secular calling that they may be admitted into the Church of Christ therefore they hold their offices of and under Christ. Fifthly He argueth thus That Office which Christ hath declared to be of God and bounded and limited in his Gospel that Office is held under Christ as Mediator But the Civil Magistrate is so Rom. 13. 4. Answ. 1. His proposition is most false and will never be proved 2. If this argument hold good then the Pagan Magistrate holds his office under Christ as Mediator for of such Magistrates then in being the Apostle meaneth Rom. 13. So that either he must recall what he saith here or what he saith afterward that the office of the Pagan Magistrate is sinful and unlawful 3 By Mr. Husseys medium one might prove that servants hold their office under Christ as Mediator because he hath declared their office to be of God and hath bounded and limited the same in his Gospel Eph. 6. 5 6 7 8. Sixthly He saith they be the same persons that are under Christ and under the Magistrate and further Christs ends and the Kings ends are both one 1 Tim. 2. 2. that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty Now either the office of the Mediators Kingdom is superior or inferior or co-ordinate in reference to the Magistrates office Answ. 1. Very often they are not the same persons that are under Christ and under the Magistrate For 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. the Apostle distinguisheth those that were within or those that were called brethren from those that were without both were under the Magistrate both were not under Christ and now the Jews in diverse places are under the Christian Magistrate not under Christ. 2. The â—nd of 〈◊〉 kingly office and the end of Magistracy are so different that to say they are the same iâ— to offer indignity and dishonour to Jesus Christ. Kings are indeed appointed that we may live under them a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty But herein he hath answered himself pag. 29. the civil Magistrate may require of the people that they will attend upon the means out of natural Principles Deum esse colendum More of the ends of Magistracy I have spoken before whether I remit him The ends of Christs Kingly Office are quite another thing namely to destroy all our soules enemies Satan the flesh the wicked world death to put all his enemies under his feet to send out his officers and ministers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ to govern his people by his Word and Spirit and to keep them by the power of God through faith unto salvation 3. The comparison between Christs Kingly office as Mediator and the Magistrates office is neither to be drawn from superiority and inferiority nor co-ordination for they are disparata and differ toto genere And now I shall proceed for methods sake to examine other four Arguments from Scripture upon which Mr. Hussey though he doth not joyn them to the former six afterward layeth no small weight for upholding that opinion that the Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as he is Mediator The seventh argument therefore shall be that which he draweth from Matth. 28. 18. pag. 25. Whereunto I have two answers according to two different applications of
to the holy men of God in the old Testament who honoured Heathen Princes and were subject to them as to lawful Magistrates but also to the doctrine of Jesus Christ who taught his Disciples to give unto Caesar what is Caesars and of the Apostles who in their time exhorted the Churches to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates for they had no other at that time to obey them to pray for them Rom. 13. Titus 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. 17. It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists that an heathen Magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a lawfull Magistrate or as being from God See Gerhard loc com Tom. 6. Pag. 498 499 P. Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo disp 13. cap. 1. The Scriptures now cited are so clear that when Mr. Hussey saith of the heathen Magistrate Let Baal plead for himself he might as well have said that Christ and his Apostles pleaded for Baal They that plead for the authority of an heathen Magistrate do not plead for Baal but for God and for his ordinance for the powers that be are ordained of God saith Paul speaking even of the heathen Magistrates Rom. 13. 1. But what will Mr. Hussey say if his great master Erastus be found a pleader for Baal as much as I am Confirm Thes. lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 184. speaking of the heathen and unbeleeving Magistrates before whom the Corinthians went to law one against another he saith An non est impius quoque Magistratus à Deo praepositus ut subjectes quoslibet ab injuria vi tueatur Is not the ungodly Magistrate also preferred by God that he may defend any of his Subjects from injury and violence Yea the Scriptures afore touched are so clear in this point that Gamachaeus in primam secunda Quaest. 4. 5. cap. 33. though he hold that by humane and Ecclesiastical right Pagan Princes lose their dominion and authority over their Subjects when their Subjects turne Christians yet he acknowledgeth that they still retain their former Jurisdiction over those Subjects by the Law of God and nature Surely one might as well say that heathen Parents are unlawful and heathen masters are unlawful and heathen husbands are unlawful all which were contrary to the Word of God as to say that heathen Magistrates are unlawful Take the instance in Parents for all lawful Magistrates are fathers by the fifth Commandement Doth the paternity of a heathen father differre specie from the paternity of a Christian father are they not both lawful parents being made such by God and nature are not their children bound to honour them and be subject to them and obey them in things lawful The paternity is the same in se but different modaliter that I may borrow a distinction from Mr. Hussey The Christian father is sanctified and qualified to do service to Jesus Christ as a father in educating his children Christianly which an heathen father can not do So the heathen Magistrate and the Christian Magistrate are both lawful Magistrates being made such by God and nature or by election of people they are both of them to be honoured submitted unto and obeyed they are both of them the ministers of God for good to their people their power is the same in actu signato though not in actu exercito The heathen Magistrate may do and ought to do what the Christian Magistrate doth but the Christian Magistrate is fitted qualified enabled and sanctified to glorifie and serve Jesus Christ as a Magistrate which the heathen Magistrate is not Secondly They that hold the derivation of Magistracy to be from Jesus Christ and that it is held of and under him as Mediator must either shew from Scripture that Jesus Christ as Mediator hath given a commission of Vicegerentship or Deputyship to the Christian Magistrate or otherwise acknowledge that they have given the most dangerous and deadly wound even to Christian Magistracy it self which ever before it received Mr. Hussey pag. 20 answereth I conceive he the Christian Magistrate hath a Commission from Christ but when he should prove it which my argument calld for here he is at a losse He citeth Psal. 72 11. All Kings shall fall downe before him all Nations shall serve him Isa. 60. 12. That Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish I hope indeed there is a time comming when all Kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ and all Nations shall serve him and that will make an end of the Erastian controversie But I pray do all that serve Jesus Christ hold their office of and under Christ as Mediator and as his Vicegerents then the poorest servant that fears God shall be a Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator and shall have a commission from Christ to that effect for every godly servant doth not serve his master onely but Christ Eph. 6. 5 6 7. Again if those who shall perish because they serve not Christ be his Deputies and Vicegerents then the wickedest persecuters in the World shall have a commission of Vicegerentship from Jesus Christ. Well let the Christian Magistrate animadvert whether these men have done any thank-worthy service to Magistracy who will needs have it to hold of and unâ—er Christ as Mediator and by a commission of Vicegerentship from him and when they are put to it to produce that commission they prove no more then agreeth either to the meanest Christian or to the wickedest persecuter The Ministery hath a clear undeniable commission from Christ as Mediator even our opposites themselves being Judges Matth. 16. 19. and 28. 19. 20. Iohn 20. 21 22 23. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. Eph. 4. 11 12. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5. I say therefore again let them also shew from Scripture a commission from Jesus Christ constituting Christian Magistrates to be his Vicegerents as he is Mediator and to hold their office of and under him as Mediator which if they cannot shew they have done a greater disservice to the Christian Magistrate then they can easily repair or amend We are sure the lawful Magistrate whether Heathen or Christian is Gods Vicegerent and that is a safe holding of his office But our opposites shall never prove that any civil Magistrate though Christian and godly is the Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator And in seeking to prove it I am perswaded they shall but discover their own weaknesse and shall also weaken the Magistrates authority more then they can strengthen it Thirdly The Scripture intimateth this difference between Ministery and Magistracy that the work of the Ministery and the administrations thereof are performed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church the work of Magistracy not so except we adde to the Word of God they who will do any thing in the Name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and cannot find any Scripture which can warrant their so doing are lyars and the truth is not in
judge such causes But this Christ himself plainly denyeth Let us hear Mr. Husseys answer pag. 24. It is the very same with that which Azorius Instit. mor. part 2. lib. 4. cap. 19. pleading for the Popes Temporall Dominion answereth concerning the point now in hand It doth not follow that because Christ was not a Iudge actu exercito therefore the originall right of Government was not in him And this Objection may be answered thus Christ doth not say he was not a Iudge but who made me a Iudge how dost thou know that I am a Iudge And thus Christ in the time of his humiliation did often hide the manifestation of his power What greater violence could be offered to the Text For the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituit is purposely used to deny the power or right as well as the exercise and proveth that he was not a Judge actu signato having no such power nor authority given him it is the same phrase which is used Act. 7. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who made thee a Ruler and a Judge Moses was then beginning to do the part of a Ruler and a Judge actu exercito but they refuse him as having no warrant power nor authority Act. 6. 3. the Apostles bid choose seven Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom we may appoint say they over this businesse Tit. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ordain Elders in every City yet neither can that of the Deacons nor this of the Elders be understood otherwise then of the right power and authority given them See the like Heb. 7. 28. Luk. 12. 42. Matth. 24. 47. The scope therefore of Christs answer was this as Aretius upon the place non debeo aliena munia invadere I ought not to invade such Offices as belong to others not to me Some of the Jesuits as forward as they are to defend the Temporal Power of the Pope as Christs Vicar on earth yet cannot shut their eies against the light of this Text who made me a Judge or a divider over you But they are forced to acknowledge that Christ denies that he had any right or authority to be a civil Judge For how can he who is authorized to be a Judge say Who made me a Judge The fifth Argument I take from Iohn 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this World The great jealousie and fear which both Herod and Pilate had of Christ was that they understood he was a King Christ clears himself in this point his Kingdom was such as they needed not be afraid of for though it be in the World it is not of the World though it be here it is not from hence it is heterogeneous to Temporal monarchy and civil Government Mr. Hussey pag. 24. tells us he knows not how those Governments that should be executed by Church-Officers should savour lesse of the World then the civil Government For this I remit him to those many and great differences which I have shewed between the civil and the Ecclesiastical Power In the mean while my argument stands in force For if all civil Government were put in Christs hand as he is Mediator and he to depute and substitute others whom he will under him then what is there in that answer of his to Pilate which could convincingly answer those mistakes and misapprehensions of the nature of his Kingdom That which is now taught by Master Hussey is the very thing which Herod and Pilate were afraid of but Christ denyeth that which they were afraid of and vers 36. is an answer to the Question asked vers 33. Art thou the King of the Jews My Kingdom is not of this World saith he To the same sence as Grotius upon the place noteth out of Eusebius Christs kinsmen when they were asked concerning his Kingdome did answer to Domitian that his Kingdom was not worldly but heavenly Sixthly I prove the point from Luke 17. 20 21. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God should come he answered them and said The Kingdom of God commeth not with observation Neither shall they say loe here or lo there For behold the Kingdom of God is within you By the Kingdom of God is meant in this place the kingdom of the Messiah as Interpreters do unanimously agree Both Iohn Baptist and Chrst himself had preached that the Kingdom of God was at hand and the Jews themselves were in expectation of the Messiah to make them free from the Roman yoke and to restore a temporal or earthly monarchy to Israel Hereupon they aske when this Kingdom should come His answer is The Kingdom of God commeth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with observation or outward shew and pomp but it is within you it is spiritual it belongs to the inward man But if the Magistrate be Christs Vicegerent and hold his office of and under Christ as Mediator and if Christ as Mediator reigne in through and by the Magistrate then the Kingdom of the Messiah doth come with observation and pomp with a crown a scepter a sword and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with princely splendor riches triumph such as the Pharisees then and the Jews now do expect which saith Grotius is the thing that Christ here denieth For all the outward pomp observation splendor majesty power and authority which a Vicegerent hath doth principally redound unto his Master and Soveraign So that by our opposites principles the Kingdom of Christ must come with observation because the dominion of the Magistrate whom they hold to be his Vicegerent commeth with observation Seventhly That Government and authority which hath a foundation in the law of nature and Nations yea might and should have had place and been of use though man had not sinned cannot be held of and under and managed for Christ as he is Mediator But Magistracy or civil Government hath a foundation in the law of Nature and Nations yea might and should have had place and been of use though man had not sinned Ergo. The reason of the proposition is because the law of nature and nations and the law which was written in mans heart in his first creation doth not flow from Christ as Mediator but from God as Creator neither can it be said that Christ as Mediator ruleth and governeth all nations by the law of nature and nations or that Christ should have reigned as Mediator though man had not sinned The Assumption is proved by Gerhard loc com Tom. 6. pag. 459. 460. 474 In the state of innocency there had been no such use of Magistracy as now there is for there had been no evil doers to be punished no unruly persons to be restrained yet as the wife had been subject to the husband and the son to the Father so no doubt there had been an union of diverse families under one head man being naturally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle calls him he is for society and