Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 2 · Chapter 6
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. Col…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 instituted and appointed by Iesus Christ to be in his Church beside the Civil Government: and if it should be granted that Christ even as Mediator hath committed, delegated and instituted Civil Government in his Church, yet they must further prove, that Christ hath committed the whole and sole power of Church-Government to the Magistrate, and so hath left no share of Government to the Ministery. But I can by no means yeeld that so much contended for Vicegerentship of the Christian Magistrate, and his holding of his Office of and under Christ as he is Mediator.
Mr. Coleman in his re-examination pag. 19. was fearfull to set his foot upon so slippery ground. He was loth to adventure upon this a…sertion, that Magistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator by a Commission of Deputation and Vicegerentship (which yet did necessarily follow upon the fourth rule which he had delivered in his Sermon) Wherefore he made a retreat and held him at this, That Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his Kingdom. But out steps Mr. Hussey and boldly … a great deal more: I much mistake if he shall not be made either to make a retreat as Mr. Coleman did, or to do worse.
First of all, this part of our Controversie is to be rightly stated. The Question is not. 1. Whether the Magistrate be Gods Deputy or Vicegerent, and as God upon earth; for who denies that? Nor 2. Whether the Magistrate be Christs Deputy as Christ is God, and as he exerciseth an universall dominion over all things, as the Father and the holy Ghost doth. Here likewise I hold the affirmative. Nor 3. Whether the Christian Magistrate be usefull and subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, even as he is Mediator and King of the Church; for in this also I hold the affirmative, that is, that as every man in his owne calling, parents, masters, servants, marchants, souldiers &c. being Christians, so the Magistrate in his eminent station, being a Christian, is obliged to endeavour the propagation of the Gospel, and the good and benefit of the Church of Christ. But the Question is, Whether the Christian Magistrate be a Governour in the Church Vice Christi, in the room and stead of Jesus Christ as he is Mediator. Or (which is all one) Whether the rise, derivation, and tenure of Christian Magistracy be from Jesus Christ under this formall consideration, as he is Mediator and head of the Church. Or (which is also the same) whether Jesus Christ by vertue of that authority and power of Government which as Mediator, and as God-man, he received of the Father, hath substituted and given commission to the Christian Magistrate to govern the Church in subordination to him, as he governeth it in subordination to his Father. In all these Mr. Hussey is for the affirmative, I am for the negative. Let us hear his reasons. First pag. 16. He argueth from my concession. A Christian Magistrate is a Governour in the Church, said Mr. Coleman, This understood sano sensu I admitted. Now saith Mr. Hussey, If the Church be Christs Kingdom, surely such as govern in it, must receive commission from him. Which commission saith he, must be in this forme. Christ the Mediator, King of his Church, doth appoint Kings and Civil Magistrates to govern under him. Let him find this commission in Scripture, and I shall confesse he hath done much. Neither doth any such thing follow upon my Concession. For 1. It is one thing to govern in the Church▪ another thing to govern the Church: Christian parents, masters of Colledges, and the like, are Governours in the Church, that is, being within, not without the Church, yet as Parents or masters they are not Church-Governours. 2. I can also admit that the Christian Magistrate governeth the Church; and if this had been the concession, which is more then the other, it could not have helped him. For how doth the Magistrate govern the Church? not qua a Church, but qua a part of the CommonWealth, as learned Salmafiu… distinguisheth, Appar. ad lib. de primat. pag. 292. 300. For the Common-wealth is not in the Church, but the Church in the Common-wealth, according to that Rev, 2. The Church in Smyrna, the Church in Pergamus, the Church in Thyatira. And suppose all that are members of the Common-wealth to be also Church-members, yet in an universall spread of the Gospel, the Church is governed by the Magistrate as it is a Common-wealth, not as it is a Church. Every soule must be subject to the higher powers, Church-Officers, Church-members and all, but the foreign qua tale, and foreign: quo ad, is not any Ecclesiastical or spiritual, but a humane and civil relation. But whereas Mr▪ Hussey addeth that the Gospel is the Law by which Christ will judge all the world: if all the world be under the Law of Christ, th…n the Kingdom of Christ must needs reach over all the World: his proofes are meer mistakes: he cites 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. Christ shall come in slaming fire, to take vengeance on all them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: but in that place they that obey not the Gospel, are those disobedient persons to whom the Gospel was preached: He cites also Rom. 2. 16. Iudge all the world according to my Gospel: but the Text saith not so; it saith, the secrets of men, not all the World. Wherefore as the Apostle there saith of the Law vers. 12. so say I of the Gospel, as many as have sinned without the Gospel, shall also perish without the Gospel; and as many as have sinned under the Gospel, shall be judged by the Gospel.
Secondly, He draweth an argument the strength whereof is taken from Psal. 2. 8. Ask of me and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession: and from 1 Tim. 6. 15. our Lord Jesus Christ is said to be King of kings, and Lord of lords: Jesus, Christ, being names that agree to him onelyonly as Mediator.
Answ. Christ as Mediator hath right to the whole earth, and all the kingdoms of the World, not as if all government (even civil) were given to Christ (for in this kind he governeth not so much as any part of the earth as he is Mediator) which was the thing he had to prove: but it is meant onelyonly of his spiritual kingdom, which is not of this world, and in this respect alone it is, that Christ as Mediator hath right to the government of all Nations, he hath jus ad rem, though not in re. As for that title King of kings, and Lord of Lords, it may be understood two wayes. First, as Christ is the eternal and natural Son of God, the eternal wisdom of God, by whom Kings reigne, and Princes decree justice, Prov. 8. 15. 16. which is spoken of Christ, as he was the Fathers delight, and as one brought up with him before the foundation of 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 onelyonly 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 Pr…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 a… ample as his Prophecy; but the Prophecie of Christ is extended to all Nations, as may appear by the commission, G… 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 onelyonly.
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 coordinate, 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 …nd of … kingly office, and the end of Magistracy are so different, that to say they are the same, i… 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 that Text. When Christ said All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, it may be understood either as he is Mediator, or as he is the second person in the blessed Trinity, the eternall Sonne of God. So when the Ubiquitaries would prove from that place the reall communication of Divine omnipotency to the humane nature of Christ, our Divines answer, the Text may be understood either of Christs person, God-man, or as he is the natural Son of God. See Gomarus upon the place. Now take the Text either way, it proves not what Mr. Hussey would. Let it be understood of Christ as God-man, and as Mediator, (which is the most promising sence for him) yet it cannot prove that all power without exception, and all government as well without as within the Church, as well secular as Ecclesiastical, is put in Christs hand as he is Mediator, and that the civil Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ: but the sence must be rGreg. de Valenti…. comment. in Thom. tom. 4. disp. 1. quaest. 32. punct. 6. Si autem per omnem potestatem, secundo intelligamus ibi cum Hieronymo & Anselmo omnem potestatem necessariam quidem Christo ad gubernandam spiritualiter omnem Ecclesiam, tum in coelo, ubi est caput & rex …; tum in terra, ubi … homines, quorum item est rex & caput: satis constat non inde sequi quod accepe…it etiam potestatem pol… ticam. Medina in tertiam partem, quaest: 59. a…t. 4. Dicendum quad omnis potestas & auctoritas tribuenda est Christo, si tamen decens sit ad efficium redemptionis; at quod fuerit rex temporalis totius orbis minime decuit Christum, …b idque istam auctoritatem non accepit.All power which belongs to the Mediator, and all authority which belongs to the gathering and governing of the Church is given to me: for we must needs expound his meaning as himself hath taught us: Iohn 18. 36. Luke 12. 14. We must not say that any such power is given to him, as himself denieth to be given to him, namely, civil power and Magistracy. Wherefore Martin Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana, pag. 273. doth rightly referre these words, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, to the head de Ecclesiae oeconomia, and makes this Text paralel to Iohn 20. 21, 22, 23. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, &c. Whose soever sins ye remit, &c. and to Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. And this is the foreign all authority or power in heaven and in earth, which is meant Matth. 28. 18. Which is further confirmed by the Syriack, which readeth thus verse 18. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth: but as my Father hath sent me▪ even so send I you. Vers. 19. Goe therefore teach all Nations: So restricting the sence to be in reference to the Church onelyonly, and excluding civil government and Magistracy, from which Christ had before excluded his Apostles. Medina in tertiam Partem, quaest. 59. art. 4. holds the same thing, that the context and cohesion of vers. 18. and vers. 19. proves the Kingdom of Christ to be meerly spirituall.
But 2. The Text will suffer yet a further restriction, namely that all power in heaven and in earth is said to given unto Jesus Christ, as he is the eternal Sonne of God, and that both in respect of the eternal generation by which the God-head, and so all Divine properties (of which omnipotency is one) was from all eternity communicated from the Father to the Son: and in respect of the declaration or manifestation of him to be the Son of God with power, when God raised him from the dead. Mr. Hussey saith he is astonished to hear that any thing should be given to Christ, as God; Where first of all I observe how miserably he mangleth and maimeth my words as in other places, so here; He citeth these words as mine, That Christ as he is eternal God, doth with the Father and the holy Ghost reigne over the Kingdoms of the earth, &c. and this power was given &c. It is not fair nor just dealing to change a mans words in a citation, especially when the change is materiall. Now here are divers changes in this passage. This one onelyonly I take notice of, I said not as he is eternal God, but as he is the eternal Sonne of God, and all along in that Question I spake of the Son of God, not essentially, but personally, as he is the Sonne of God, or second person in the Trinity, and so the God head and all the attributes and properties thereof, are communicated to him from the Father by the eternal Generation; and as the Nicene Creed said he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, God of God, Light of Light. I ask therefore Mr. Hussey, What do you mutter here? Speak it out, Doe you hold that Jesus Christ is not onelyonly foreign, but foreign, not onelyonly essentially, but personally foreign, that he is not onelyonly ex seipso Deus, but ex seipso filius? If this be the thing you hold, then you oppose me indeed, but so as you fall into a blasphemous heresie, that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God, hath not all power in in Heaven and in Earth, but onelyonly as he is Mediator, because that power is given to him, and nothing can be given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God, but onelyonly as he is Mediator, by your principles: But if your meaning be no more then this, that Christ considered foreign in respect of the very nature and essence of the God-head, is foreign, not God of God, but God of himself, and that so nothing can be said to be given to him: then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to suppose me to be herein opposite unto you; when I plainly spake of the eternal Son of God foreign in respect of the personality or relation of filiation, or as he is the eternall Son of God, in which sence I yet averre confidently, that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Jesus Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God by eternal generation.
I added, that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, in another respect, namely in respect of the declaration thereof at his resurrection. To this Mr. Hussey replieth, that to hold any thing should be given him that should concern his God-head at the time of his resurrection, is more monstrous. Then hath Gomarus and others given a monstrous answer to the Ubiquitaries, yet they clear it by Augustines rule, aliquid dicitur fieri quando incipit patesieri. Is it any more strange then to say that Christ was begotten that day when he was raised from the dead Act. 13. 33. The Son of God had in obedience to his Fathers will, laid aside and relinquished his divine dominion and power when he took upon him the forme of a servant (which I said before, but it seems was not considered by Mr. Hussey) now at his resurrection the Father restoreth with advantage that formerly relinquished Soveraignty.
But he addeth, that if Matt. 28. 18. be not understood of Christ as Mediator, then he had no authority as Mediator to send his Apostles: for it followeth Go ye therefore and preach: from this authority here spoken of, is the authority to preach the Gospel.
Answ. Not to stand upon the want of the particle foreign therefore, in diverse Greek coppies: I admit of the cohesion and dependance of the words, thus. Christ being to give a commission to the Apostles to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations, he first anticipateth a great objection, which might arise in the Apostles minds; They might think, how shall we be able to carry the Gospel through the Nations? We shall have all the powers of the world against us. To remove this fear, he said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, as if he had said, Do you beleeve that I who send you out, a… the Son of the living God? T…en know assuredly, that my divine power and soveraignty shall be for you, and I will so over-rule all the Kings and Potentates and States of the World, as may be most for my glory and your good; fear not therefore, but go and preach to all Nations.
And so much of that Text Matth. 28. 18. Salmeron upon the place draws from it Christs dominion even in temporall things (as Mr. Hussey doth) and thence he deriveth the temporall power of the Pope as Christs Vicar over the Kings and Kingdoms of the World. So Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae disp. 48. sect. 2. Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Thomae, Quaest. 22. yet some of the Papists themselves are ashamed to defend Christs dominion in temporall things (except as God onelyonly) it appearin to them so far contrary to other Scriptures.
Bellarmine himself lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. confesseth that Christ as he did not execute any Temporall dominion, so he neither had nor received such power and authority: thereupon he inferreth that the Pope whom he calleth Christs Vicar and Representee on earth, hath not any Temporal dominion directly, but indirectly, and in ordine ad spiritualia. I appeal also to Salmeron in another place where he speaks more soundly Tom. 4. part▪ 3. Tract. 4. pag. 413. he proves from Iohn 18. 36. and Luke 12. 14. that Christ had not nor received not any temporall power, and thence inferreth, Cum ergo Christus hujusmodi potestatem non habuerit, nec Petro illam tradidit.
The eigth argument shall be that which Mr. Coleman did draw from 1 Cor. 12. 28. to prove that Christ hath placed in his Church Magistrates or civil Governments. Hereunto I had made four answers. Mr. Hussey passeth two of them, which he is pleased to esteem trifles not worth answer. Now the Gamaliel speaks è cathedra. The other two he offereth to confute, pag. 28, 29, 30 31. First, whereas I said that if by Governments in that place be understood civil Magistrates, yet the Text saith not that Christ hath placed them. Then saith Mr. Hussey à fortiori you disclaim by that means any Government in this place as Officers under Christ. No Sir, this reasoning is à baculo ad angulum. I hold Church-Officers and Church-government to be under Christ, and under him as Mediator, and K…ng of the Church, and am ready to prove it against any that will denie it: But upon supposition, that civil Government is meant in that Text, (which I utterly deny) I had reason to call the affirmer to his proper task, to prove from that Text, that Christ as Mediator hath placed civil Government or Magistracie in his Church. This was the point it was brought for, and still I call to make good that proof, for I denie it. It seemes Mr. Hussey finds himself puzzled to make it out, and therefore he saith, if Mr. Coleman will be ruled by me. so as Mr. Gilespie will not urge this for constitution of Church-Governments, he shall … it goe. But if it be a truth, Sir you ought to buy it, and not sell it: For my part I dare make no bargain of Scripture.
My next answer was, that the Apostle speaks of such Governours, as the Church had at that time; but at that time the Church had no Godly nor Christian Magistrates. Mr. Hussey answereth that it cannot be proved that the Apostle speaketh of such Officers as were in the Church in his time onelyonly. He addeth, I shall urge some few argaments to the contrary. To the contrary of what? I did not say that the Apostle speaketh of such Officers as were in the Church in his time onelyonly: but that the Church at that time had all those Officers whom the Apostle speaketh of. One would think that he who censureth others so much for want of skill in disputations, should not so far mistake his mark. But we know what he would have said though he hath not hit it. Let us hear his arguments. First, he tells us that the word foreign will signifie proposuit or decrevit, so that where we read God hath set in the Church, it may be read God hath appointed to his Church, so to take in those Governments which should afterward by Gods appointment come to the Church. He clears it by Iohn 15. 16. Act. 19. 21. Answ. Then the Apostle saith no more to the Corinthians, then might have been said to the old world before the flood, for if the meaning be that God hath ordained and purposed, all this Text had been true, if delivered in terminis terminantibus, to the old World, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, &c. 2. The context sheweth that the Apostle speaketh onelyonly of such administrations, as the Church had at that time, for all this is spoken in reference to the preventing of a Schisme in the Church of Corinth, and that every member of that body might discharge its owne proper function without usurping anothers. 3. He confuteth himself, for he addeth, This cannot be a Catalogue of such Officers as are at all times necessary to the Church, for th…n Apostles might not be mentioned. Therefore it must be said, that foreign in this place is posuit or collocavit (according to the more usuall signification of foreign) and doth relate to that present time, as well as Act. 20. 28. The holy Ghost hath made or set you overseers foreign: In like manner here God hath set (or placed) in the Church, and so it will agree both to ordinary and extraordinary officers. But if foreign be decrevit, then it will referre the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, miracles, to the future estate of the Church, as if they were ordinary Officers to continue in the Church. 4. When foreign signifieth decrevit, then the thing is not mentioned, as having an actuall present existence, but a futurition; so that when he takes him to the decrevit, he quits the posuit, and by that means one cannot prove from that Text, that the Church at that time had any of these Officers there enumerated: foreign relates to all that follows, and either it must be posuit to them all, or to none of them.
5. If he had intended to expresse Gods decree or purpose to give unto his Church certain Officers, he would not have said foreign and God hath decreed some in the Church. Which could make no perfect sence except some other thing were added. Mr. Hussey might as well expound Act. 5. 18. foreign, thus, and they decreed them in the common prison. Mr. Hussey would render the Text thus, he hath appointed to his Church: If the Text had said foreign he might have rendred it so, but when the Text saith foreign he must not render it …o the Church, but in the Church, as Act. 19. 21. foreign, Paul purposed in the spirit: the purpose was not to the Spirit, but in the Spirit.
The second Argument whereby he … that which I said, is this, at tha… time there were workers of miracl…s which did supply the defect of civil Magistrates. And here he insisteth a while to tell us that thus much a National Covenant and … Magistrate may require of the people, that they will attend upon the means out of natural principles, which at that time miracles caused men to attend upon. But quid haec ad Rhombum? How comes this home to that which he undertook to prove? And if it did, I must say that the civil Magistrate is but little, and a National Covenant far lesse beholding to him. And if the workers of miracles did at that time supply the defect of civil Magistrates (I suppose he should have said Christian Magistrates) then he must draw Christian Magistracy to come in succession not so much to the civil Magistracy in the Apostles times (which yet was true Magistracy) as to the miracles mentioned in the Text, and so bring in the Christian Magistrate upon the ceasing of miracles. A fine plea indeed for Christian Magistracie.
His third Argument goeth thus, We have in the Text first, second, and third; when the Apostle speaks of these which might be liable to present view, but then he breaks off with foreign, after that miracles, which lasted somewhat longer then the Apostles and Prophets; and last we have foreign, and these may be ordinary gifts, and this foreign relates to helps, Governments: that Calvin thinks the helps were some Officers the Church hath lost: But being put both in one case without any conjunction copulative, why they may not (I beleeve he would have said, why may they not? for the sence can be no other) belong both to one thing, and this foreign may not have some influence upon the times and after age. Answ. If this be his manner, we shall not much fear the dint of his Arguments, when it comes to the Schooles, which he calls for. What a great matter is made of meer nothing? First, he offereth violence to the Text, because if foreign note posteriority of time, and ordinary gifts, then foreign, which is compounded from foreign must much rather note the same thing, and so we shall have not onelyonly gifts of healing, but miracles too, ordinary and continuing administrations in the Church. Next he offereth violence to the Greek language: for when foreign and foreign signifie posteriority, not onelyonly in the enumeration, but in the time of existence, then the one must needs signifie a pre-existence, and the other a post-existence, they cannot be contemporary from their beginnings; yet Mr. Hussey will needs have foreign before miracles, and again foreign efore gifts of healing and diversities of tongues, to signifie posteriority of time, though he cannot say that gifts of healing and diversities of tongues were not contemporary but posterior in time to miracles, And further observe that when the Text runs in this order, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, &c. Mr. Hussey will make this the sence, that there were Apostles before prophets, there were Prophets before teachers, there were Teachers before miracles, there were miracles before gifts of healings, &c. and vice versa, there were no gifts of healings till after there had been miracles, no miracles till after there had been Teachers in the Church, &c. even as Mark. 4. 28. foreign first the blad foreign then the ear, foreign after that the ful corn in the ear: the blade hath an existence before the eare, the eare before the full corne. So that taking foreign and foreign in his sence, he must either make out distinctly the order of time, or else confesse he would make the Apostle speak as never Grecian in the world spake, or lastly be content to understand the Apostles words of the order of enumeration. If the word foreign had been in the Text▪ that had indeed carried it to posteriority of time as Heb. 12. 17. but foreign (though sometime it signifieth posteriority of time, yet) in this place having reference to such antecedents and consequents cannot bear his sence. I see it were no ill sport to examine his quint Arguments if a man had but so much leisure.
Thirdly, He offereth violence to Calvin, for sCalv. in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Aut certe tam munus quam domum olim suit, quod nobis hodie est incognitum: aut ad diaconiam pertinet, hoc est curam pauperum. Atque hoc secundum mihi magis arridet▪Calvin saith that these helps mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. were either an ancient gift and office unknown to us now, or it belongs to Deaconship, that is, the care of the poor. And this second (saith he) rather pleaseth me. Qua fide then, could Mr. Hussey affirm that Calvin thinks they were some Officers that the Church hath lost.
Fourthly, Whereas he thinks helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles: foreign, was read thus, helps in Governments: but afterwards the Prelats themselves were ashamed of it, and so it was printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, Govirnments. The Syriack addeth a copulative, and readeth thus, and helpers, and Governors, so making them distinct officers in the Church. Neither is it any unusual thing in the Greek, to put together Nouns in the same case without any conjunction copulative, when the things themselves so expressed are most different, as Matth. 15, 19. Gal. 5. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Rom. 1. 29, 30. 31.
The next thing he brings against me, is from Ephes. 4. 11. where there is no ordinary or standing Officer left to us, but the Teacher of the Word: here is neither help nor government but this poor Teacher left alone to edifie the body of Christ, and to perfect the Saints. Answ. What Argument is there here? ruling Elders are not mentioned Ephes. 4. therefore the Governments mentioned 1 Cor▪ 12. are such as the Church had not at that time. There are diverse passages of Christs doctrine, life, and sufferings, which are not mentioned by Matthew, yet they are mentioned by Iohn or some of the other Evangelists. So if we take the primitive platform right, we must set the whole before us, that which is not in one place is in another place. The Apostle Eph. 4. intendeth onelyonly to speak of preaching officers who are appointed for this work of the Ministery, to bring us to unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, that we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrine, v 12 13, 14. And if the Apostle had intended to enumerate all Church-officers in that place, which were then in the Church, how comes it he doth not mention Deacons which he distinguisheth from Bishops or Elders? 1 Tim. 3.
His last Argument is, that in this very place 1 Cor. 12. the Apostle, when he doth again enumerate the particulars vers. 29. 30. he leaveth out helps, Governments, for which, he saith, he knows no reason, but because there were none such at that time, and the Apostle in that induction was to deal with their experience. This (as many other things which he hath) was before answered to Mr. Coleman. I give this plain reason for the omission of these two. The Apostle speaketh to those, who were not well satisfied nor contented with their owne station in the Church, but were aspiring to more eminent gifts and administrations, are all Apostles? saith he, are all Prophets? &c. and so he reckoneth out onelyonly those rare and singular gifts, which men did most covet: and for that cause it was neither necessary, nor had it been agreeable to the scope of the Apostle to have added, are all helps? are all Governments? But now he purposely leaveth out these, thereby intimating to the ruling Elders and Deacons of the Church of Corinth, that they ought to be contented with their owne station, though they be neither Apostles, nor Prophets. &c.
It remaineth therefore that the Governments in the Church mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. were such Governments as were in the Church at that time, and therefore not to be understood of Christian Magistracy: but of Church▪Government distinct from the civil.
The ninth Argument brought to prove that all Government is given to Christ as Mediator, and that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ, as the head of Magistracy and Principality, is from Eph. 1. 21, 22, 23. This Argument first propounded by Mr. Coleman, is prosecuted by Mr. Hussey pag. 32, 33. &c. He demurres upon that which I said, that this place maketh more against him then for him; the meaning whereof was no more then this, that this place doth rather afford us an Argument against him, then him against us. Come we to the particulars. My first Reply was, The Apostle saith not that Christ is given to the Church, as the head of all Principalities and Powers. The Brother saith so, and in saying so he makes Christ a head to those that are not of his body. This exception Mr. Hussey quarrelleth, but when he hath endeavoured to prove from that Text that Christ is the head of Principalities: because he that is head of all things, is also head of Principalities: though he will never be able to make it out from that Text, that Christ (as Mediator) is head of all things, but onelyonly, that he who is the Churches head is over all things; and gave him to be the head over (not of) all things to the Church, saith the Text, which as I told before, the Syriack readeth more plainly thus, and him who is over all, he gave to be the head to the Church.) At last he fairly gives over the proof. It is true saith he, disputations do require men to keep close to termes, but in Col. 2. 10. ye have the very words, head of all Principality and Power. In Col. 2. 10. Christ as he is the eternall Son of God, is called head of all Principality and power: as we shall see anon: but Ephes. 1. where the Apostle speaketh of Christs headship, in reference to the Church, and as Mediator, he is not called the head of all Principality and Power. So that I had reason to except against Mr. Colemans argument which made that Text Ephes. 1. to say what it saith not. Now what saith he to the reason I added, can Christ be a head to them that are not of his body? He tells me the visible Church is not the body of Christ, but onelyonly the faithfull. He might have observed the visible Church consisting of visible Saints, plainly spoken of, as the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 12, 12. 14 27. I know the visible Church is not all one with the invisible and mystical body of Christ; but he who denyeth the visible Church to …e the visible, political, ministerial body of Christ, must also deny the visible Church to be the visible Church; for if a Church, then certainly the body of Christ, at least visibly.
The next thing which I did replie, was in explanation of the Text, which was to this sence. He that is the Churches head, is over all, both as he is the Sonne of God, or as the Apostle saith Rom. 9. 5. God over all, blessed for ever, yea even as man he is over or above all creatures, being exalted to a higher degree of glory, majesty, and dignity, then man or Angel ever was, or shall be: but neither his divine omnipotency, nor the height of glory and honour which as man he is exalted to, nor both these together in the Mediator and Head of the Church, omnipotency and exaltation to glory, can prove that (as Mediator) he exerciseth his Kingly office over all Principalities and Powers, and that they hold of and under him as Mediator. Mr. Hussey replieth that the Text makes Christ over or above Principalities and Powers, not onelyonly in dignity and honour, but as King or Head of them, and that thus we must understand the comparison, that he is above Principality in Principality, Power in Power, Might in Might, Dominion in Dominion. This is nothing but a begging of what is in Question: That the Power and Dominion of the civil Magistrate, is eminently in Christ as Mediator, and from him (so considered) derived to the Magistrate, is that which I deny can be proved from that Text; and lo when he comes to the point of probation, he supposeth what he had to prove. My exposition of the Text made good sence; For as an earthly King is exalted to have more power and more glory, then those not onelyonly of his Subjects, but of another State or Kingdom to whom he is not King; so the Mediator and King of the Church is exalted to power and glory far above all Principality and Power, but is not therefore Head or King or Governor to all Principality and Power, as Mediator. And as me exposition makes good sence of the Text, his makes very bad sence of it. For if Christ as Mediator be head and King of all Principalities, powers, and Dominions, then he is, as Mediator, head and King of Heathenish and Turkish Principality, Power, might, and Dominion; and when the Apostle wrote this to the Ephesians, it must be granted (according to Mr. Husseys glosse) that Christ as Mediator was head and King of the Romane Emperour, and that Caesar held his office of and under Christ as Mediator: for if head of all Principality, how shall they except any?
I further brought severall reasons from the Text it self. The first was this, The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of, hath place not onelyonly in this world, but in that which is to come (vers. 21) But the Kingdom and Government which is given to Christ as Mediator, shall not continue in the World to come. Mr. Hussey answereth pag. 41. this is Ignoratio el nehi, it followeth not, that which belongeth to him in reference to the World to come, belongeth not to him as Mediator, therefore that Government that is given to him in reference to this World, is not given to him as Mediator. But still he beggs what is in Question, and divideth asunder what the Text coupleth together, not onelyonly in this World, but also in that which is to come: here is a rising and heightning, but no contradistinction, nothing here of one exaltation in reference to the World to come, another in reference to this World: but that exaltation of Christ above every name that is named, (which this Text speaks of) beginnes in this World, and shall continue in the World to come. Calvin. in Eph. 1. 21. Seculi autem futuri disertam facit mentionem, ut significet non temporalem esse Christi excellentiam, sed aeternam. He makes expresse mention of the World to come, that he may signifie Christs excellency not to be temporal, but eternal. This doth well agree to the dignity, excellency, glory, and honour of Christ, but it cannot be said that Christ shall for ever continue in his Kingly Office as Mediator.
The second reason which I fetcht from the Text, was from vers. 22. He hath put all things under his feet; that is, all things except the Church, saith Zanchius. But all things are not yet put under his feet, except in respect of Gods decree; It is not yet done actually. Heb. 2. 8. Now Christ reignes as Mediator before all things be put under his feet, not after all things are put under his feet, which is clear 1 Cor. 15. 25. Act. 2. 34, 35. Mr. Husseys reply pag. 41. 42. saith, that the Church is not here to be excepted, but Church and all is here put under Christs feet, which he proveth by Heb. 2. 8. He left nothing that is not put under him. But this cannot be understood to be actually done; for the next words say, But now we see not yet all things put under him: and if not done actually, but in respect of Gods decree and fore-knowledge, (according to the sence I gave out of Hierome on Eph. 1. 22.) how can it strengthen him in this particular? We see not yet. This yet shall not expire till the end, when Christ shall put down all authority and power. And now when it is said He hath put all things under his feet. Ephes. 1. 22. that the Church is not meant to be comprehended, but to be excepted in that place as Zanchius saith, may thus appear; the Apostle distinguisheth the all things from the Church, and calls the Church the body of Christ, and him the head to that body, but the all things are put under Christs feet (his body is not under his feet, but under the head) and he over all things: for so runs the Text, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body.
And whereas Mr. Hussey distinguisheth between Christs putting all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. 25. and the Fathers putting all things under his feet, Ibid. vers. 27. and maketh this latter to be an actual putting under him of friends, foes, Church and all, whence it seems he would have it to follow, that Christ reignes as Mediator, even after all things are put under his feet. He is herein easily confuted from Heb. 2. …. Where God the Father his putting all things under Christs feet, is plainly declared to be a thing to come, and not yet actually done.
The next reason which I gave out of the Text was from those words, And gave him to be the head over all thiags to the Church; Christs headship and his Government as Mediator, are commensurable. Christ is a head to none but to his Church. These words of mine Mr. Hussey changeth thus: he is head over none saith Mr. Gilespie, but his Church, and then he addeth, Is this to argue out of Scripture, or rather to deny and outface the Scripture? the Scripture saith, he is over all. See what unconscionable impudent boldnesse this is, to cite my words (yea in a different character too, that his Reader may beleeve it the better) and yet to change not onelyonly my words, but my meaning. I purposely kept my self to the Text, that Christ is a head to none but to his Church, yet he that is the Churches head is over all things. And since Mr. Hussey will needs hold that Christ as Mediator is head of all things (which the Text saith not) what were the consequence hereof? The Text saith foreign over all things, not over all persons onelyonly: So Heb. 2 7, 8. compared with Psal. 8. 6, 7. Whence it followes by Mr. Husseys principles (which I tremble to mention) that Christ as Mediator is Head and King not onelyonly of men, but of sheep, oxen, fowles, and fishes. Behold how dangerous it is for men to be wise above that which is written.
The last reason which I brought from the last verse, was this, The Church is there called Christs fulnesse in reference to his Headship. This Mr. Hussey saith, seemeth to come tolerably from the Text; but the next words, that which makes him full and compleat so farre as he is a Head or King: he calls a fallacy, How commeth this word King in here? saith he; First here he yeelds that the Church makes Christ full and compleat so farre as he is a Head, whence it followeth that as Mediator he is onelyonly the Churches head, and there is no other body of Christ but the Church; for if the Church be his fulnesse, his compleat body, there can be no other body of Christ. Doth not this destroy what he hath been arguing for, that Christ as Mediator is head of all Principality and Power? And for the word King, it may well come in where Head commeth: for is not Christs Kingdom as Mediator, commensurable with his Headship as Mediator? Is he as Mediator King to any to whom he is not Head? Surely this very answer as it is his last, so it really yeeldeth the cause.
The tenth objection is that which I my self moved to prevent my Antagonists. Christ is called the Head of all Principality and Power, Col. 2. 10.
To this I answered out of Bullinger, Gualther, and Tossanus; the scope and meaning of the Apostle, is to shew that Christ is true God, and therefore we must not understand the Apostle to speak of Christs headship as he is Mediator, but as he is the natural and eternal Sonne of God. Mr. Hussey pag. 34. thinks it is no good consequence, the Apostle speaks not of Christ as Mediator, because he speaks of him as true God, Is not Christ saith he, true God as Mediator? I answer, As Mediator he is God-man. But he must remember the Argument is urged to prove the subordination of all Principality and power to Jesus Christ as Mediator. Now let him prove that the Apostle speaketh there of Christ as Mediator; I say he speaketh of Christ as God; He cannot conclude against what I said, except he argue thus, that which Christ is as God, he is as Mediator; which is false, as I have made it appear else-where. Well: but Mr. Hussey proves from the Text that Christ is there spoken of as Mediator. vers. 9, 10. For in him dwelleth the fulnesse of the God-head bodily, and ye are compleat in him which is the head of all Principality and power. But he draweth no argument from the words. Neither is there any thing in them which maketh against me. The Apostle shews them, that the man Jesus Christ is also true God, equal and consubstantial with the Father; for the very fulnesse of the God-head is in him, that is, he is fully and compleatly God, so that saith Calvin, they who desire something more then Christ, must desire something more then God. Wherefore our Writers make the right use of this place when they bring it against the Socinians, to prove the God-head of Christ. See Christian. Becman. exercit. 9. This fulnesse of the God-head is in Christ bodily, that is, either personally, to distinguish him from the holy men of God, who were inspired by the holy Ghost; or substantially, as others take the Word, in opposition to the Tabernacle and Temple in which the God-head was typically. Ye are compleat in him, saith the Apostle, meaning because he is compleatly God, so that we need not invocate or worship Angels, as if we were not compleat in Christ. Mr. Hussey admitteth what I said concerning the scope of the place, to teach the Colossians not to worship Angels, because servants: But saith he, may they not worship Christ as Mediator? yes doubtlesse they may. No doubt he that is Mediator must be worshipped, because he is God; Christ God-man is the object of divine adoration, and his God-head is the cause of that adoration; but whether he is to be worshipped because he is Mediator, or under this formall consideration as Mediator; and whether the Mediator ought to be therefore adored with divine adoration, because he is Mediator, is res altioris indaginis. If Mr. Hussey please to read and consider what divers School▪men have said upon that point, as Aquinas tertia part. quaest. 25. art. 1. & 2. Alex. Alensis Sum. Theol. part▪ 3. quaest. 30. membr. 2. Suarez in tertiam part. Thomae Disp. 53. sect. 1. Valentia Comment. in Tho. Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest. 24. punct. 1. Tannerus Theol. Scholast. Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest. 7. Dub. 7. But much more if he please to read Disputatio de adoratione Christi, habita inter Faustum Socinum & Christianum Francken: and above all Dr. Voetius select. disput. ex poster. part. Theol. Disp. 14. An Christus qua Mediator sit adorandus? Then I beleeve he will be more wary and cautious what he holds concerning that Question. But I must not be ledd out of my way to multiply Questions unnecessarily: All that I said was, that the Apostle teacheth the Colossians, not to worship Angels, because they are servants, but Christ the Son of the living God, who is the Head and Lord of Angels; and in that place the Apostle speaketh of the honour which is due to Christ as God; and if we would know in what sence the Apostle calls Christ the Head of all Principality and Power, see how he expounds himsel Coloss. 1. 15, 16, 17. speaking of the God-head of Jesus Christ. Finally, If Mr. Hussey will prove any thing from Coloss. 2. 10. against us, he must prove that those words which is the head of all Principality and power, are meant in reference not onelyonly to the Angels, but to Civil Magistrates; and next, that they are meant of Christ, not onelyonly as God, but as Mediator. Both which he hath to prove, for they are not yet proved.