The first rule was this, "Establish as few things _jure divino_ as can well be;" which is, by interpretation, as little fine gold, and as much dross as can well be. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times," Psal. xii, 6. What you take from the word of G.o.d is fine "gold tried in the fire" (Rev. iii. 18); but an holy thing of man's devising is the dross of silver. Can he not be content to have the dross purged from the silver except the silver itself be cast away? The very contrary rule is more sure and safe; which I prove thus:-

If it be a sin to diminish or take aught from the word of G.o.d, insomuch that it is forbidden under pain of taking away a man's part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city; then as many things are to be established _jure divino_ as can well be. But it is a sin to diminish or take aught from the word of G.o.d, insomuch that it is forbidden under pain of taking away a man's part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city; therefore as many things are to be established _jure divino_ as can well be.

It must be remembered, withal, 1. That the question is not now, Whether this or that form of church government be _jure divino_; but, Whether a church government be _jure divino_; whether Jesus Christ hath thus far revealed his will in his word, that there are to be church-censures, and those to be dispensed by church-officers. The brother is for the negative of this question. 2. Neither is it stood upon by any, so far as I know, that what the Parliament shall establish concerning church government must be established by them _jure divino_ If the Parliament shall, in a parliamentary and legislative way, establish that thing which really, and in itself, is agreeable to the word of G.o.d, though they do not declare it to be the will of Jesus Christ, I am satisfied, and, I am confident, so are others. This I confess, That it is inc.u.mbent to parliament-men, to ministers, and to all other Christians, according to their vocation and interest, to search the Scriptures, and thereby to inform their own and other men's consciences, so as they may do in faith what they do in point of church government, that is, that they may know they are not sinning, but doing the will of G.o.d. And it ought to be no prejudice nor exception against a form of church government that many learned and G.o.dly divines do a.s.sert it from Scripture to be the will of G.o.d. And why should _jus divinum_ be such a _noli me tangere_? The reason was given. "This was the only thing that hindered union in the a.s.sembly (saith he). Two parties came bia.s.sed. The reverend commissioners from Scotland were for the _jus divinum_ of the presbyterial, the Independents for the congregational government. How should either move? where should both meet?" If it was thus, how shall he make himself blameless, who made union in the a.s.sembly yet more difficult, because he came bia.s.sed a third way, with the Erastian tenets? And where he asketh where the Independents and we should meet, I answer, In holding a church government _jure divino_, that is, that the pastors and elders ought to suspend or excommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) scandalous sinners. Who can tell but the purging of the church from scandals, and the keeping of the ordinances pure (when it shall be actually seen to be the great thing endeavoured on both sides), may make union between us and the Independents more easy than many imagine. As for his exceptions against us who are commissioners from the church of Scotland, I thank G.o.d it is but such, yea, not so much, as the Arminians did object(1330) against the foreign divines who came to the Synod of Dort. They complained that those divines were pre-engaged and bia.s.sed, in regard of the judgment of those churches from which they came; and that therefore they did not help, but hinder, union in that a.s.sembly.

And might not the Arians have thus excepted against Alexander, who was engaged against them before he came to the Council of Nice? Might not the Nestorians have made the same exception against Cyril, because he was under an engagement against them before he came to the Council of Ephesus?

Nay, had not the Jewish zealots the very same objection to make against Paul and Barnabas, who were engaged, not in the behalf of one nation, but of all the churches of the Gentiles, against the imposition of the Mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at Antioch before they came to the synod at Jerusalem? Acts xv. 2. It is not faulty to be engaged for the truth, but against the truth. It is not blameworthy, but praiseworthy, to hold fast so much as we have already attained unto. Notwithstanding we, for our part, have also from the beginning professed, "That we are most willing to hear and learn from the word of G.o.d what needeth further to be reformed in the church of Scotland."(1331)

The second rule which was offered in that sermon was this: "Let all precepts, held out as divine inst.i.tutions, have clear scriptures," &c.; "Let the Scripture speak expressly," saith he. I answer: The Scripture speaks in that manner which seemed fittest to the wisdom of G.o.d; that is, so as it must cost us much searching of the Scripture, as men search for a hid treasure, before we find out what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of G.o.d concerning the government of his church. Will any divine in the world deny that it is a divine truth which, by necessary consequence, is drawn from Scripture, as well as that which, in express words and syllables, is written in Scripture? Are not divers articles of our profession,-for instance, the baptism of infants,-necessarily and certainly proved from Scripture, although it makes no express mention thereof in words and syllables? But let us hear what he hath said concerning some scriptures (for he names but two of them) upon which the acts of spiritual or ecclesiastical government have been grounded. "That place, 1 Cor. v., takes not hold (saith he) on my conscience for excommunication, and I admire that Matt. xviii. so should upon any." It is strange that he should superciliously pa.s.s them over without respect to so great a cloud of witnesses in all the reformed churches, or without so much as offering any answer at all to the arguments which so many learned and G.o.dly divines of old and of late have drawn from these places for excommunication; which, if he had done, he should not want a reply. In the meantime, he intermixeth a politic consideration into this debate of divine right. "I could never yet see (saith he) how two co-ordinate governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state." I suppose he hath seen the co-ordinate governments of a general and of an admiral; or, if we shall come lower, the government of parents over their children, and masters over their servants, though it fall often out, that he who is subject to one man as his master, is subject to another man as his father. In one ship there may be two co-ordinate governments, the captain governing the soldiers, the master governing the mariners. In these and such like cases you have two co-ordinate governments, when the one governor is not subordinate to the other. There is more subordination in the ministers and other church-officers towards the civil magistrate. For the minister of Christ must be in subjection to the magistrate; and if he be not, he is punishable by the law of the land as well as any other subject. The persons and estates of church-officers, and all that they have in this world, are subject to civil authority. But that which is Christ's, and not ours, the royal prerogative of the King of saints, in governing of his church according to his own will, is not subject to the pleasure of any man living. But the reverend brother might well have spared this. It is not the independency of the church government upon the civil government which he intended to speak against, it is the very thing itself, a church government, as is manifest by his other two rules.

I come therefore to his next, which is the third rule: "Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly laid upon them." He means none at all, as is manifest not only by his fourth rule, where he saith that he finds no inst.i.tution of other governments beside magistracy, but also by the next words, "The ministers have other work to do (saith he), and such as will take up the whole man."

He might have added this one word more, that without the power of church government, when ministers have done all that ever they can, they shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution. Before I proceed any farther, let it be remembered, when he excludes ministers from government: First, It is from spiritual or ecclesiastical government, for the question is not of civil government. Secondly, He excludes ruling elders too, and therefore ought to have mentioned them with the ministers as those who are to draw the same yoke together, rather than to tell us of an "innate enmity between the clergy and the laity." The keeping up of the names of the clergy and laity savoureth more of a domineering power than anything the brother can charge upon presbyteries. It is a point of controversy between Bellarmine(1332) and those that write against him; he holding up, and they crying down those names, because the Christian people are the ??????, the heritage of the Lord as well as the ministers. Thus much by the way of that distinction of names; and, for the thing itself, to object an innate enmity between the ministers of the gospel and those that are not ministers, is no less than a dishonouring and aspersing of the Christian religion. To return, you see his words tend to the taking away of all church government out of the hands of church-officers. Now may we know his reasons? He fetcheth the ground of an argument out of his own heart: "I have a heart (saith he) that knows better how to be governed than govern." I wish his words might hold true in a sense of pliableness and yielding to government. How he knows to govern I know not; but it should seem in this particular he knows not how to be governed; for after both houses of parliament have concluded "that many particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government," he still acknowledgeth no such thing as presbyterial government. I dare be bold to say he is the first divine, in all the Christian world, that ever advised a state to give no government to church-officers, after the state had resolved to establish presbyterian government; but let us take the strength of his argument as he pretendeth it. He means not of an humble pliableness and subjection (for that should ease him from his fear of an ambitious ensnarement, and so were contrary to his intention), but of a sinful infirmity and ambition in the heart, which makes it fitter for him and others to be kept under the yoke than to govern. And thus his argumentation runs: "Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why I may not (G.o.d fashions men's hearts alike; and as in water face answers face, so the heart of man to man), I ingenuously profess I have a heart that knows better how to be governed than govern,-I fear an ambitious ensnarement, and I have cause,-I see what raised Prelacy and Papacy to such a height," &c. The two scriptures will not prove what he would. The first of them, Psal. x.x.xiii. 15, "He fashioneth their hearts alike," gives him no ground at all, except it be the h.o.m.onomy of the English word _alike_, which in this place noteth nothing else but t? ?a?????,-all men's hearts are alike in this, that G.o.d fashioneth them all, and therefore knoweth them all _aeque_ or alike (that is the scope of the place). The Hebrew _jachad_ is used in the same sense, Ezra iv. 3, "We ourselves together will build;"(1333) they mean not they will all build in the like fashion, or in the same manner, but that they will build all of them together, one as well as another; so Psal. ii. 2, "The rulers take counsel together;" Jer. xlvi. 12, "They are fallen both together." The other place, Prov. xxvii. 19, if you take it word by word as it is in the Hebrew, is thus: "As in water faces to faces; so the heart of man to man."

Our translators add the word _answereth_, but the Hebrew will suffer the negative reading, _As in water faces answer not to faces_. The Septuagint reads: "As faces are not like faces, so neither are the hearts of men alike." The Chaldee paraphrase thus: "As waters and as countenances, which are not like one another, so the hearts of the sons of men are not alike."

Thus doth Mr Cartwright, in his judicious commentary, give the sense: "As in the water face doth not answer fully to face, but in some sort, so there may be a conjecture, but no certain knowledge of the heart of man."

But let the text be read affirmatively, not negatively, what shall be the sense? Some take it thus:(1334) A man's heart may be someway seen in his countenance as a face in the water. Others(1335) thus: As a face in the water is various and changeable to him that looketh upon it, so is the heart of man inconstant to a friend that trusteth in him. Others(1336) thus: As a man seeth his own face in the water, so he may see himself in his own heart or conscience. Others(1337) thus: As face answereth face in the water, so he that looketh for a friendly affection from others, must show it in himself. It will never be proved that any such thing is intended in that place as may warrant this argumentation. There is a particular corruption in one man's heart-for instance, ambition-which makes him unfit to be trusted with government; therefore the same corruption is in all other men's hearts; even as the face in the water answereth the face out of the water so just, that there is not a spot or blemish in the one but it is in the other. I am sure Paul taught us not so when he said, "In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves," Phil. ii. 3. Nay, the brother himself hath taken off the edge of his own argument (if it had any) in his epistle printed before his sermon, where, speaking of his brethren, from whose judgment he dissenteth in point of government, he hath these words: "Whose wisdom and humility (I speak it confidently) may safely be trusted with as large a share of government as they themselves desire." Well, but suppose now the same corruption to be in other men's hearts, that they are in great danger of an ambitious ensnarement if they be trusted with government, is this corruption only in the hearts of ministers, or is it in the hearts of all other men? I suppose he will say, in all men's hearts, and then his argument will conclude against all civil government. Last of all, Admit that there be just fears of abusing the power and government ecclesiastical,-let the persons to be intrusted with it be examined, and the power itself bounded according to the strictest rules of Christ. Let abuses be prevented, reformed, corrected. The abuse cannot take away the use where the thing itself is necessary. Why might he not have satisfied himself without speaking against the thing itself? Once, indeed, he seemeth to recoil, and saith, "Only I would have it so bounded, that it might be said, Hitherto shalt thou come, and here shalt thou stay thy proud waves," yet by and by he pa.s.seth his own bounds, and totally renounceth the government to the civil power, which I shall speak to anon.

But I must first ask, Whence is this fear of the proud swelling waves of presbyterial government? Where have they done hurt? Was it upon the coast of France, or upon the coast of Holland, or upon the coast of Scotland, or where was it? Or was it the dashing upon _terra in cognita_? He that would forewarn men to beware of presbyterial usurpations (for so the brother speaking to the present controversy about church government must be apprehended), and to make good what he saith falls upon the stories of Pope Paul V., and of the Bishop of Canterbury, is not a little wide from the mark. I should have expected some examples of evils and mischiefs which presbyterial government hath brought upon other reformed churches.

Well, the reverend brother hath not done, but he proceedeth thus: "It was the king of Sodom's speech to Abraham, 'Give me the persons, take thou the goods;' so say I, Give us doctrine, take you the government: as is said, Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the behalf of the ministry. Give us two things and we shall do well: 1. Give us learning; and, 2. Give us a competency."

This calls to mind a story which Clemens Alexandrinus tells us:(1338) When one had painted Helena with much gold, Apolles, looking upon it, "Friend (saith he), when you could not make her fair, you have made her rich."

Learning and competency do enrich. The Jesuits have enough of both, but that which maketh a visible ministerial church to be "beautiful as Tizrah, comely as Jerusalem," that which maketh fair the outward face of a church, is _government_ and _discipline_, the removing of scandals, the preserving of the ordinances from pollution. He had spoken more for the honour of G.o.d and for the power of G.o.dliness, if he had said this in the behalf of the ministry: It were better for us to want competency and helps to learning, than to partake with other men's sins, by admitting the scandalous and profane to the Lord's table. His way, which he adviseth, will perhaps "get us an able ministry, and procure us honour enough," as he speaketh; but, sure, it can neither preserve the purity, nor advance the power of religion, because it putteth no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in church-members more than in any others. The king of Sodom's speech cannot serve his turn except it be turned over, and then it will serve him as just as anything, thus: Give us the goods, take you the persons (or _the souls_, as the Hebrew and the Chaldee hath it); "Give us a competency,"

saith he,-here he asketh the goods,-"take you the government,"-here he quitteth the persons or souls to be governed only by the civil power.

However, as at that time Abraham would take nothing that was not his own, insomuch as he answereth the king of Sodom: "I will not take from a thread even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not take anything that is thine,"

Gen. xiv. 23; so this Parliament, I trust, shall be so counselled and guided of the Lord, that they will leave to the church what is the church's, or rather to Christ what is Christ's. And as Abraham had lift up his hand to the most high G.o.d to do that (ver. 32), so have the Honourable Houses, with hands lift up to the most high G.o.d, promised to do this.

And now, seeing I have touched upon the covenant, I wish the reverend brother may seriously consider whether he hath not violated the oath of G.o.d in advising the Parliament to lay no burden of government upon church-officers, but to take the government of the church wholly into their own hands. In the first article of the solemn league and covenant, there is thrice mention made of the government of the church; and namely, That we shall endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of G.o.d, and the example of the best reformed churches. Where observe,

1. The extirpation of church government is not the reformation of it. The second article is indeed of things to be extirpated; but this of things to be preserved and reformed. Therefore as by the covenant Prelacy was not to be reformed, but to be abolished, so, by the same covenant, church government was not to be abolished, but to be reformed.

2. Church government is mentioned in the covenant as a spiritual, not a civil thing. The matters of religion are put together-doctrine, worship, discipline, and government; the privileges of Parliament come after, in the third article.

3. That clause, "According to the word of G.o.d," implieth, that the word of G.o.d holdeth forth such light unto us as may guide and direct us in the reformation of church government.

4. And will the brother say that the example of the best reformed churches leadeth us his way; that is, to have no church government at all distinct from the civil government?

And so much concerning his third rule.

The fourth was this: "A Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate, is a governor in the church." And who denieth this? The question is, Whether there ought to be no other government in the church beside that of the Christian magistrate. That which he driveth at is, That the Christian magistrate should leave no power of spiritual censures to the elderships.

He would have the magistrate to do like the rich man in the parable, who had exceeding many flocks and herds, and yet did take away the little ewe-lamb from the poor man, who had nothing save that. The brother saith, "Of other governments besides magistracy, I find no inst.i.tution; of them I do, Rom. xiii. 1, 2." I am sorry he sought no better, else he had found more. Subjection and obedience is commanded, as due not only to civil but to spiritual governors, to those that are over us in the Lord, 1 Thess. v.

12; so, 1 Tim. v. 17, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour;" Heb. xiii. 7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of G.o.d;" ver. 17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls."

And what understandeth he by "he that ruleth," Rom. xii. 8? If the judgment of Gualther and Bullinger have any weight with him (as I suppose it hath) they do not there exclude, but take in, under that word, the ruling officers of the church.

But now, in the close, let the reverend brother take heed he hath not split upon a rock, and taken from the magistrate more than he hath given him. He saith, "Christian magistrates are to manage their office under Christ, and for Christ. Christ hath placed governments in his church, 1 Cor. xii. 28, &c. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator (I desire all to consider it), Eph. i. 3, 23, and Christ, as Head of these, given to the church." If this be good divinity, then I am sure it will be the hardest task which ever he took in hand to uphold and a.s.sert the authority either of pagan or Christian magistrates.

First, He lets the pagan or infidel magistrate fall to the ground, as an usurper who hath no just t.i.tle to reign, because all government is given to Christ, and to him as Mediator. But which way was the authority of government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a pagan prince or emperor?

Next, He will make it to fare little better with the Christian magistrate.

For if the Christian magistrate be the vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ as Mediator; and if he be to manage his office under, and for Christ,-then the reverend brother must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as Mediator, hath given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian magistrate; or otherwise, acknowledge that he hath given a most dangerous wound to magistracy, and made it an empty t.i.tle, claiming that power which it hath no warrant to a.s.sume.

G.o.d and nature hath made magistrates, and given them great authority; but from Christ as Mediator they have it not.

I find in Scripture, that church-officers have their power from Christ as Mediator; and they are to manage their office under and for Christ; and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ do we a.s.semble ourselves together, Matt.

xviii. 20; in his name do we preach, Luke xxiv. 47; Acts iv. 17, 18; v.

28, 41; ix. 27; in his name do we baptise, Acts ii. 38; iv. 12, 16; xix.

5; in his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. v. 5. But I do not find in Scripture that the magistrate is to rule, or to make laws, or to manage any part of his office in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And as the Mediator hath not anywhere given such a commission and power to the magistrate, so, as Mediator, he had it not to give; for he was not made a judge in civil affairs, Luke xii. 14, and his kingdom is not of this world, John xviii. 36. How can that power which Christ as Mediator hath not received of the Father be derived from Christ to the Christian magistrate? I know that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of G.o.d, and "thought it no robbery to be equal with G.o.d," doth, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, reign and rule over all the kingdoms of the sons of men.

He that is Mediator, being G.o.d, hath, as G.o.d, all power in heaven and earth (and this power was given to him, Matt. xxviii. 18, both by the eternal generation, and by the declaration of him to be the Son of G.o.d with power, when he was raised from the dead, Rom. i. 4, even as he is said to be begotten, when he was raised again, Acts xiii. 33: he had relinquished and laid aside his divine dominion and power when he had made himself in the form of a servant, but after his resurrection it is gloriously manifested), and so he that is Mediator, being G.o.d, hath power to subdue his and his church's enemies, and to make his foes his footstool. But as Mediator he is only the church's King, Head, and Governor, and hath no other kingdom. The Photinians have defined the kingly office of Christ thus: "It is an office committed to him by G.o.d, to govern, with the highest authority and power, all creatures endued with understanding, and especially men, and the church gathered of them."(1339) But those that have written against them have corrected their definition in this particular, because Christ is properly King of his church only.

As for those two scriptures which the brother citeth, they are extremely misapplied. He citeth 1 Cor. xii. 28 to prove that Christ hath placed civil governments in his church. If by the governments or governors there mentioned he understood the civil magistrates, yet that place saith not that Christ hath placed them, but that G.o.d hath done it.

Next, The Apostle speaks of such governors as the church had at that time; but at that time the church had no G.o.dly nor Christian magistrates. This is Calvin's argument, whereby he proves that ecclesiastical, not civil governors, are there meant.

Thirdly, I ask, How can we conceive that civil government can come into the catalogue of ecclesiastical and spiritual administrations? for such are all the rest there reckoned forth.

Lastly, The brother, after second thoughts, may think he hath done another disservice to the magistrate, in making the magistracy to be below and behind the ministry. The Apostle puts them in this order: "G.o.d hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments," &c. How makes the brother this to agree with his interpretation.

Next, He citeth Eph. i. 21-23, to prove that all government is given to Christ, and to him as Mediator; and Christ, as Head of these, given to the church. But this place maketh more against him than for him; for the Apostle saith not that Christ is given to the church as the Head of all princ.i.p.alities and powers. The brother saith so; and, in saying so, he makes Christ a head to those that are not of his body.

The Apostle saith far otherwise: That G.o.d gave Christ "to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body;" which the Syriac readeth more plainly,-"And him who is over all he gave to be the head to the church." He is a head to none but the church; but He who is head to the church "is over all, G.o.d blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5; yea, even as a man, he is over or above all. The very human nature of Christ which was raised from the dead, being set at the right hand of the Majesty of G.o.d, is exalted to a higher degree of honour and glory than either man or angel ever was, or ever shall he; so that He that is head of the church is over all, because he doth not only excel his own members, but excel all creatures that ever G.o.d made. It is one thing to say that Christ is exalted to a dignity, excellency, pre-eminence, majesty, and glory, far above all princ.i.p.ality, and power, and might, and dominion; another thing to say that Christ is head of all princ.i.p.alities and governments, and, as Mediator, exerciseth his kingly office over these. The Apostle saith the former, but not the latter.

Shall I need to ill.u.s.trate this distinction? Is there anything more known in the world? Will any say that he who excels other men in dignity, splendour, honour, and glory, must therefore reign and rule over all those whom he thus excels?

The Apostle saith indeed, in another sense, that Christ "is the head of all princ.i.p.ality and power," Col. ii. 10. But that is spoken of Christ not as he is Mediator, but only as he is G.o.d; and the Apostle's meaning in those words is nothing but this: That Christ is true G.o.d, saith Tossa.n.u.s; that he is omnipotent, saith Gualther; that he, being the natural Son of G.o.d, is together with the Father, Lord of all things, saith Bullinger.

That this is the meaning will soon appear:-

1. From the scope of the place, which is to teach the Colossians not to worship angels, because they are but servants, and the Son of G.o.d is their Lord and Head.

2. The Apostle expounds himself how Christ is the head of all princ.i.p.ality and power: Col. i. 15-17, "Who is the image of the invisible G.o.d, 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 princ.i.p.alities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Now all this is, without controversy, to be understood not of the office, but of the person of Jesus Christ; not of his governing and kingly office, as he is Mediator, but to prove that he is true and very G.o.d; therefore Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tossa.n.u.s, M.

Bayne, and divers other interpreters upon the place, do generally agree that the Apostle (ver. 15-17) speaks of the dignity and excellency of the person of Jesus Christ, proving him to be true G.o.d; and that (ver. 18) he cometh to speak of his office, as he is Mediator: "And he is the head of the body, the church," &c. So that we may distinguish a twofold headship of Jesus Christ: One, in regard of his G.o.dhead,-and so he is head of all princ.i.p.ality and power; another, in regard of his office of Mediatorship,-and so he is head of the church only. The present question is of the latter, not of the former. The former is common to the Son of G.o.d with the Father and the Holy Ghost; the latter is proper to Christ as G.o.d and man. The former shall continue for ever; the latter shall not continue for ever. The former doth not necessarily suppose the latter; but the latter doth necessarily suppose the former. Christ can reign as G.o.d, though he reign not as Mediator; but he cannot reign as Mediator and not reign as G.o.d. The object of the former is every creature; the object of the latter is the church gathered out of the world.

This digression concerning the headship of Jesus Christ may for the future prevent divers objections, so I shall return.

And now (I desire all to consider it) there is not one word in those three last verses of Eph. i. which will give any ground for that which the brother with so much confidence averreth. Ver. 21 affordeth this argument against him: The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of hath place "not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." But the kingdom and government which is given to Christ, as Mediator, shall not continue in the world to come (for when Christ hath put his enemies under his feet, he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and reign no longer as Mediator, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25); therefore the government given to Christ, as he is Mediator, cannot be meant in that place, but the dignifying, honouring, preferring, and exalting of Christ to a higher degree of glory than either man or angel.

Come on now and see whether ver. 22 maketh any whit more for him: He "hath put all things under his feet;" that is, saith Zanchius, all things but the church, which is his body. But this must be meant in respect of the decree and foreknowledge of G.o.d, as Jerome expounds the place; and so doth the Scripture expound itself: Heb. ii. 8, "But now we see not yet all things put under him;" 1 Cor. xv. 25, "He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet;" Acts ii. 34, 35, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool." Now, when Christ shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power, and shall put his enemies under his feet, then he shall cease to reign any more as Mediator (which I have even now proved); but before that be done he reigns as Mediator. So that it can never be proved that the meaning of these words, "He hath put all things under his feet," is, that all government in this world is given to Christ as Mediator; and whoever saith so, must needs acknowledge that Christ's exercising of government, as he is Mediator, over all princ.i.p.alities and powers, shall continue after all things shall be put under his feet; or that Christ shall not govern as Mediator, "till all things be put under his feet," which is so contrary to the Apostle's meaning, that Christ shall then cease to reign as Mediator.

The next words, "And he gave him to be the head over all things to the church," do furnish another argument against him. Christ's headship, and his government as Mediator, are commensurable, and of an equal extent.

Christ is a head to none but to his church; therefore no government is given to him as Mediator but the government of his church.

The last verse doth further confirm that which I say; for the Apostle, continuing his speech of the church, saith, "Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." He calls the church Christ's fulness, in reference to his headship, that which makes him full and complete so far as he is a head or king. Having his church fully gathered, he hath his complete kingdom, his perfect body; and this being done, he wants nothing, so far as he is Mediator: so that the Holy Ghost doth here, as it were on purpose, antic.i.p.ate this opinion, lest any should think all civil government is given to Christ as Mediator. Though, as G.o.d, he filleth heaven and earth, yet, as Mediator, his filling of all in all extends no further than his body, his church, which is therefore called his fulness.

Finally, To avoid the mistake of this place, and upon the whole matter, let these three things be well distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ.

1. His ?pe???? or d??a, his eminence and highness in respect of the glory and majesty he is exalted to, far above whatsoever is highest among all the creatures. 2. His d??a??, the power by which he can, and doth by degrees, and will more and more subdue his and his church's enemies, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel, and break them with a rod of iron. 3. His as??e?a, his kingly power, by which he exerciseth acts of government. These three are distinguished in an earthly king, the first two being of a larger extent than the third. The conclusion of that prayer which our Lord taught his disciples doth distinguish the same three in G.o.d: "Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory." Now these being distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ, I conclude with these three distinct a.s.sertions (the truth whereof I hope I have made to appear): 1.

As Mediator, he is exalted and dignified above all creatures, and his glory is above all the earth; 2. As Mediator, he exerciseth acts of divine power and omnipotence over all creatures, in the behalf of, and for the good of his church, and restraineth, or diverteth, or destroyeth all his church's enemies; 3. As Mediator, he is king, head, and governor to none but his church: neither was all government put in his hand, but that of the church only.

I could enlarge myself further against that most dangerous principle, "That all government, even that which is civil, is given to Christ, and to him as Mediator;" but let these things suffice for the present. The reverend brother's opinion will find better entertainment among the Jews, who expect a temporal monarchy of the Messiah; and among Papists, who desire to uphold the Pope's temporal authority over kings, as Christ's vicegerent upon earth.