Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Arguments for the Negative of that Question formerly propounded.
MY Arguments against the derivation of Magistracy from Jesus Christ as Mediator, and against the Magistrates holding of his office of and under Christ as Mediator, are these.
First, This Doctrine doth evacuate and nullifie the civil Authority and Government of all Heathen or Pagan Magistrat…; for which way was the authority of Government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a Pagan Magistrate or Emperour? If he hath not his power from Christ as Mediator, then he is but an usurper, and hath no just title to reign, according to their Principles which hold that all government, even civil, is given to C rist, and to him as Mediator. Mr. Hussey forsooth doth learnedly yeeld the argument, and answereth pag. 20. that not onelyonly it is a sin to be a Heathen, but the government of a Heathen is sinfull and unlawfull, for which he gives this reason, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. He might as well conclude, in that sence, that the best vertues of the Heathen were sin, because not of faith, that is, accidentally sin, in respect of the end, or manner of doing, not materially, or in their own nature. VponUpon the same reason he must conclude, that the government of a Christian Magistrate is unlawfull, if it be not of faith, as oftimes it is not, through the blindnesse and corruption of mens hearts who govern. But whether is the government of a Heathen Magistrate per se, simpliciter, & ex natura sua, unlawful and sinful? Whether hath he any just right or title to Government and Magistracy? If his title to civil Magistracie be just, and if his government be in it self materially and substantially lawful▪ then he must have a Commission from Christ, and from him as Mediator: This I suppose cannot be Mr. Husseys sence, for he hath not answered one syllable to the argument, tending that way. But if the Government of an Heathen Magistrate be in it self materially, substantially, and in the nature of the tenure, sinfull and unlawfull, so that as long as he remains an Heathen, he hath no reall right, nor true title to Government, but onelyonly a pretended and usurped title (which must needs be Mr. Husseys sence, if he hath answered any thing at all to my Argument) then he goeth crosse not onelyonly 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 onelyonly, 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 thankworthy service to Magistracy, who will needs have it to hold of and un…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 them. Now let our opposites shew (if they can) where they find in Scripture, that the Christian Magistrate is to rule in the name of Christ, to judge in the name of Christ, to make laws in the name of Christ, to make war or peace in the name of Christ, to punish evil doers with the Temporal Sword in the name of Christ. Of the Ministery I did shew, that in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we do assemble our selves together, Matth. 18. 20. in his name doe we preach, Luk. 24. 47. Act. 4. 17, 18. and 5. 28. 44. and 9. 27. In his name do we baptize, Act. 2. 38. and 8. 16. and 19. 5. In his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. 5. 5. These my proofs from Scripture Mr. Hussey pag. 21. professeth he will examine according to laws of disputation. I know none transgresseth those laws more than himself, and even in this very place where he professeth to keep close to lawes of disputation: my first proof from Matth. 18. 20. he quarrelleth upon a meer mistake of his owne. He saith I brought it to prove the institution of Church-officers, and that to prove it, I do appropriate the meeting in the name of hCrist to Church-Officers, and thereupon he tells us the Text saith not, that none shall gather together in my name but Church-Officers. Are these Mr. Husseys lawes of disputation? He had need to be a better disputer who calls others to School. I did not speak here of the Institution of Church-Officers, and far lesse did I exclude all others from meeting in the name of Christ; Church-officers assemble in the name of Christ with the Church; and when they assemble in the name of Christ apart, and without the multitude, will it follow that because they meet in the name of Christ, therefore none but they meet in the name of Christ. Well, let Mr. Hussey try all his Logick in this consequence, it will not do. The sixth general Councell, Actione 17. apply unto their owne oecumenicall Assembly, that promise of Christ Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, &c. Protestant Writers both in their Commentaries, and Polemick Writings, do usually apply the same Text to Synods and Councells: For instance, Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 1. & 2. holds that the authority of Councells dependeth upon that promise of Christ, Where two or three are met together in my name, &c. That which went before, carries it to Assemblies for acts of discipline, as being principally intended in that place. The promise ver. 20. is general, belonging to all Church Assemblies: yet in that place it is applyed to Assemblies of Church-Officers for discipline. But neither need I go so far in this present argument; for when Church-Officers meet with the Church for the Word, Sacraments▪ and other parts of Worship, this is in the name of Jesus Christ, without all controversie, and this is enough to justifie all that I brought that Text for; especially there being herein a difference between sacred and civil Assemblies: there is no such promise made to Magistrates Courts of Justice, as to Church Assemblies. That which he citeth out of Dr. Whittaker and Bishop Mortoun makes nothing against me, neither doth he quote the places, peradventure because he found something in those passages which made against him. Whittakers sence is plainly of sacred, and not of civil Assemblies. And for that so much controverted Text Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church. Whittaker expoundeth it as we do against the Erastians, Tell the Pastors and Rulers of the Church. Whittak. de Eccles. quaest. 1. cap. 2. Dic Ecclesiae, hoc est Pastoribus & Praefectis Ecclesiae.
As for preaching, Mr. Hussey saith, it is out of question that we preach in the name of Christ. Well: then let him shew such another thing of the Magistrate, as is without controversie done by him in the name of Christ.
But where I added, that in the name of Jesus Christ we baptize, though I said no more then the Scripture saith, yet he is pleased to object against me. These places he citeth saith he, to prove that we baptize in the Name of Jesus, as exclusively to Father and holy Ghost, (leaving out the words of the commission: Matth. 28. Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost) for so the state of his question doth require; for he distinguisheth acutely and acurately between Christ as Mediator and second person (he should have said as second Person) in Trinity, in all this Argument. And so he concludes that which I had said to be contrary to the words of the Commission and the practice of all Churches. What doth he drive at? I cited plain Texts to prove that baptisme is administred in the name of Christ: Either Mr. Hussey denyeth that this is done in the name of Christ as Mediator: or he denyeth it not. If he denie it, let him speak it out, and he shall not want an answer. Mean while let him remember that himself pag. 25. saith, that Christ as Mediator did give that commission to the Apostles, Go Preach and baptize. If he denie it not, then let him give the like instance for Magistracy and civil Government, to prove it to be managed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator, else he must not plead that Magistracy is of the same tenure from Christ as the Ministery. Again, either he admitteth a distinction between Christ as Mediator, and as second person in Trinity, or not. If he doe not, he will infallibly wind himself into a grosse heresie; as namely these two. 1. He must denie that principle which according to the Word of God, all Orthodox Divines hold against the Arrians and Antitrinitarians, that tSynop. pur. Theol. Disp. 26. Thes. 29. Tametsi ob istam mediationem filius Dei minor sit Patre, non propterea ipso minor est quoad Deitatem.Christ as Mediator is subordinate unto, and lesser then the Father; but as second person in the Trinity he is not subordinate unto nor lesser then the Father, nor the Father greater then he, but as such he is equal with the Father in greatnesse, glory, and honour. 2. As opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, he must also hold that whatsoever Christ as Mediator doth, that also the Father and the holy Ghost doth: but Christ as Mediator did humble himself to the death, offer himself in a sacrifice for sin, maketh intercession for us, Ergo, he must conclude the Father doth the same. But if he do admit the distinction as Mediator, and as second person in Trinity, then why doth he so often quarrell it? And in this very place his Argument must drive against that distinction, or against nothing. But how doth the baptizing in the name of Christ as Mediator, agree with the commission to baptize in the name of the Father▪ Son, and holy Ghost? Though this belong not to my Argument, yet I will by the way speak to it. First I say, the Question is of things or actions, not of words. Mr. Hussey (it seems) did apprehend my meaning, as if I had intended an expression to be made in the act of baptizing, thus, I baptize thee in the name of Iesus Christ. But I spake of the action, not of the expression, even as in the other instance I gave; our assembling together is in the name of Christ, though we do not say in terminis, We are now assembled in the name of Christ. In baptisme Christ doth not command us to say, either these words, I baptize thee in the Name of Christ; or these words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: but we are commanded to do the thing, both in the name of Christ as Mediator, and in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: But in different respects. A minister of Christ doth both preach and baptize in the name of Christ as Mediator, that is vice Christi▪ in Christs stead, and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator; for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptize by Mr. Husseys confession. So that to preach and baptize foreign (which we find both of preaching, Luk. 24 47. and of baptizing, Act. 2. 38.) comprehendeth a formall commission, power and authority given and derived from Christ, I say not that it comprehendeth no more, but this it doth comprehend. But when Christ biddeth us baptise foreign unto, or into, or in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Mat. 28. 19. this doth relate to the end and effect of baptisme, or the good of the baptized (if we understand the words properly) not the authority of the baptizer, as if a formall commission were there given him from the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. So that to baptize one in or unto the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is properly meant both of sealing the parties right and title to the enjoyment of God himself, as their God by covenant, and their interest in the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the communion of the holy Ghost; and of dedicating the party to the knowledge, profession, saith, love, and obedience of God, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.
I return, The next branch of my Argument was that we excommunicate in the name of Christ 1 Cor. 5 5. Mr. Hussey pag. 22. saith I make great hast here, deliver to Sathan saith he is not to excommunicate, &c. But grant that it were excommunication, &c. the decree was Pauls, and not the Corinthians. What is meant by delivering to Sathan, belongs to another debate. Call it an Apostolicall act, or call it an Ecclesiasticall act, or both, yet it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; the like whereof we find not in Scripture of any act of the civil Magistrate. Why doth he not attend to the drift of the Argument? And as to his exceptions uSynops. pur. Theol. Disp. 42. Coroll. 4. An Apostolus Paulus cum hominem incestuojum Satanae tra…ret, quicquam peculiare habuerit? Nos contra Socinianos Apostolum Paulum non ex jwe sibi peculiari, sed sibi cum omnibus Ecclesiae Preslyteris communi, incestuosum illum Satanae tradidisse, colligimus ex 1 Cor. 5. 4. Mat. 18. 17. 18.they are no other then Prelats, Papists, and Socinians have made before him, and which are answered long agoe. That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man, is acknowledged by Mr. Prynne. That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Sathan, is undeniable; for he that is cast out of the Church, whose sins are retained, on whom the Kingdom of heaven is shut and locked, whom neither Christ nor his Church doth owne, is delivered to Sathan, who reignes without the Church. That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a Church act, and not an Apostolicall act onelyonly, may thus appear. 1. The Apostle blameth the Corinthians, that it was not sooner done; he would not have blamed them, that a miracle was not wrought. 2. He writeth to them, to do it when they were gathered together, not to declare or witnesse what the Apostle had done, but to joyne with him in the authoritative doing of it, vers. 4. 5. again he saith to them vers. 7. Purge out therfore the old leaven. vers. 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within? vers. 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked person. 3. It was a censure inflicted by many, 2. Cor. 2. 6 not by the Apostle alone, but by many. 4. The Apostle doth not absolve the man, but writeth to them to forgive him, 2 Cor. 2. 7. Lastly, the Syriack maketh for us, which runneth thus, vers. 4. That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you all may be gathered together, and I with you in the Spirit, with the power of our Lord Iesus Christ, vers. 5. That you may deliver him to Sathan. &c.
But now at last Mr. Hussey comes home, and gives this answer to my third Argument. A thing may be said to be done in the name of Christ or of God, when men do any thing in confidence that God will assist us: so Psal. 20 5. In the name of our God will we set up our banners in confidence God will assist us: Thus I hope the Parliament and other Christians may undertake the businesse in the name of Christ, &c. Secondly, In the name of Christ a thing is said to be done, that is done in the authority, room, and place of Christ, &c. So he pag. 24. seeking a knot in the rush. In the first part of his distinction, he saith nothing to my Argument, neither saith he any more of the Parliament then agreeth to all Christians, the poorest and meanest; for every Christian servant, every Christian Artificer is bound to do whatsoever he doth, in the name of Christ, Colos. 3. 17. But what is that to the Argument? Come to the other member of his distinction. The Ministers of Christ do act in the name of Christ: that is, in the authority, room and place of Christ; We are Ambassadors for Christ, and we preach in Christs stead, 2 Cor. 5. 20. This he doth not nor cannot denie: (which makes good my Argument;) Why did he not shew us the like concerning Magistracy? I suppose he would, if he could: this is the very point which he had to speak to, but hath not done it.
My fourth Argument against the Magistrates holding of his office of, and under, and for Christ, that is, in Christs room and stead as Mediator, shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jewes were of the same opinion, which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey have followed, namely, that civil government should be put in the hands of Christ, which they collected from Ier. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth; and such other Prophecies by them mis-understood. And hence it was that one said to Christ, Master, Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. Our Lords answer was, Man who made me a Judge or a divider over you. Whatsoever act of authority is done by a Deputy or Vicegerent, as representing his Master and Soveraigne, may be done by the King himself when personally present: If therefore the Magistrate judge civil causes, and divide inheritances, as the Vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ as Mediator, then Christ himself, when present in the dayes of his flesh, had power as Mediator to 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. xJo. Brentius Hom. in Luc. Tom. 1. Hom. 106. Quis me construit Judicem aut divisorem super vos? hoc est, alia est civilis Magistratus voca to, alia mea vocatio. Ad illum pertinet ut dijudicet controversias de haereditatibus, & id genus ahis rebus. Ad me autem pertinet ut doceam Evangelion de remissione peccatorum, & vita aeterna. Ut igitur nollem quod magistratus meum officium temere usurparet, ita & mea interest, ne temere usurpem mihi vocationem magistratus. Observanda doctrina, qua non solum erudimur, quod sit proprium & legitimum officium Christi in hoc externo mundo, verum etiam admonemur exemplo Christi, ne quis alienam vocationem illegitime invadut. Jo. Winckelmannus in Luk. 12. 14. Negat se esse politicum Judicem herciscundae familiae, sicut nec adulteram damnet, Joh. 8. Ostendit enim esse discrimen inter Politicum magistraium, & munus Ecclesiasticum.What greater violence could be offered to the Text? For the Verbe foreign 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. foreign, 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, foreign, whom we may appoint say they over this businesse, Tit. 1. 5. foreign : 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 yGreg. de Valentia comment. Theol. Tom. 4. Disp. 1▪ Quaest. 22. Punct. 6. Homo, quis me constituit Judicem aut divisorem inter vos? Quasi diceret: Nemo plane, neque homo, & multo minus Deus. Si enim a Deo habuisset Dominium Jurisdictionis politicae, multo verius su sset censtitutus Judex politicus, quam si eam Jurisdictionem habuisset ab homine. Et tamen negat omnino se fuisse talem Judicem constitutum. Unde per hoc quod addit, Quis me constituit Judicem? &c. Eum remisit ad alium qui haberet eam potestatem, qua ipse careret. See the like in Bellarmine de Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 4.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, zforeignthat 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 foreign 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 foreign, 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 foreign as Aristotle calls him, he is for society and 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: aHier. Ru st co monacho. Etiam muta animantia & serarum greges ductores sequuntur suos. In apibus principes sunt.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: onelyonly 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 bQui Mario, ipse Caio Caesari: qui Augusto, ipse & Neroni; qui Vespasianis vel patri vel filio, suavissimis Imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo. Et ne per singulos ire necessesit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse Apostatae Iuliano.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.