the Apostle, meaning because he is completely God; so that we need not invocate or worship angels, as if we were not complete 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, doubtless, 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 godhead is the cause of that adoration; but whether he is to be worshipped because he is Mediator, or under this formal 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 schoolmen have said upon that point, as Aquinas, part 3, quest. 25, art. 1, 2; Alex. Alensis, Sum. Theol. part 3, quest. 30, membr. 2; Suarez, in tertiam part. Thomæ, disp. 53, sect. 1; Valentia, Comment. in Tho. tom. 4, disp. 1, quest. 24, punct. 1; Tannerus, Theol. Scholast. tom. 4, disp. 1, quest. 7, dub. 7. But much more if he please to read Disputatio de Adoratione Christi, habita inter Faustum Socinum et Christianum Francken; and above all, Dr Voetius Select. Disput. ex Poster. part. Theol., disp. 14: An Christus qua Mediator sit adorandus? then I believe he will be more wary and cautious what he holds concerning that question. But I must not be led 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 sense the Apostle calls Christ the Head of all principality and power, see how he expounds himself, Col. i. 1517, speaking of the godhead of Jesus Christ. Finally, If Mr Hussey will prove anything from Col. ii. 10, against us, he must prove that those words, "Which is the head of all principality and power," are meant in reference not only to the angels, but to civil magistrates; and next, that they are meant of Christ, not only as God, but as Mediator: both which he hath to prove, for they are not yet proved.

CHAPTER 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 magistrate's holding of his office of and under Christ as Mediator, are these :

First, This doctrine doth evacuate and nullify the civil authority and government of all heathen or pagan magistrates; for which way was the authority of government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a pagan magistrate or emperor? 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, who hold that all government, even civil, is given to Christ, and to him as Mediator. Mr Hussey, forsooth, doth learnedly yield the argument, and answereth, p. 20, that not only it is a sin to be a heathen, but the government of a heathen is sinful and unlawful; for which he gives this reason, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." He might as well conclude, in that sense, that the best virtues 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. Upon the same reason he must conclude, that the government of a Christian magistrate is unlawful, if it be not of faith, as ofttimes it is not, through the blindness and corruption of men's hearts who govern. But whether is the government of a heathen magistrate per se, simpliciter, et ex natura sua, unlawful and sinful? Whether hath he any just right or title to government and magistracy? If his title to civil magistracy be just, and if his government be in itself materially and substantially lawful, then he must have a commission from Christ, and from him as Mediator. This I suppose cannot be Mr Hussey's sense, for he hath not answered one syllable to the argument, tending that way. But if the government of an heathen magistrate be in itself materially, substanially, and in the nature of the tenure, sinful and unlawful, so that, as long as he remains an heathen, he hath no real right or true title to government, but only a pretended and usurped title (which must needs be Mr Hussey's sense, if he hath answered anything

at all to my argument), then he goeth cross not only 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 Cæsar what is Cæsar's; 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. xiii.; Titus iii. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; 1 Peter ii. 13-17. It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists, that an heathen magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a lawful magistrate, or as being from God. See Gerhard, Loc. Com., tom. 6, p. 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. xiii. 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, p. 184, speaking of the heathen and unbelieving magistrates, before whom the Corinthians went to law one against another, he saith, An non est impius quoque magistratus á Deo præpositus, ut subjectos quoslibet ab injura et 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 Gamachæus, in Primam Secunda, quest. 4, 5, cap. 33, though he hold that by human and ecclesiastical right, pagan princes lose their dominion and authority over their subjects when their subjects turn 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 commandment: Doth the paternity of a heathen father dif

ferre 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 cannot 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 glorify 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 show 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 itself, which ever before it received. Mr Hussey, p. 20, answereth, "I conceive he (the Christian magistrate) hath a commission from Christ;" but when he should prove it (which my argument called for), here he is at a loss. He citeth Psal. lxxii. 11, "All kings shall fall down before him, all nations shall serve him;" Isa. lx. 12, "That nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish. I hope indeed there is a time coming when all kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ, and all nations shall serve him, and that will make an end of the Erastian controversy 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 only, but Christ, Eph. vi.

5-7. Again, if those who shall perish because they serve not Christ, be his deputies and vicegerents, then the wickedest persecutors 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 under 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 than agreeth either to the meanest Christian, or to the wickedest persecutor. The ministry hath a clear undeniable commission from Christ, as Mediator (even our opposites themselves being judges), Matt. xvi. 19; xxviii. 19, 20; John xx. 21-23; 2 Cor. v. 19, 20; Eph. iv. 11, 12; Acts xx. 28; Tit. i. 5. I say therefore again, let them also show 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 show, they have done a greater disservice to the Christian magistrate than they can easily repair or amend. We are sure the lawful magistrate (whether heathen or Christian) is God's vicegerent, and that is a safe holding of his office. But our opposites shall never prove, that any civil ma gistrate (though Christian and godly) is the vicegerent of Jesus Christ, as Mediator. And, in seeking to prove it, I am persuaded they shall but discover their own weakness, and shall also weaken the magistrate's authority more than they can strengthen it.

Thirdly, The Scripture intimateth this difference between ministry and magistracy, -that the work of the ministry 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 add to the word of God. They who will do anything in the name of Jesus Christ, as Mediator, and cannot find any scripture which can warrant their so doing, are liars, and the truth is not in them. Now, let our opposites show (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 ministry I

did show, that in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we do assemble ourselves together, Matt. xviii. 20; in his name do we preach, Luke xxiv. 47; Acts iv. 17, 18; v. 28, 44; ix. 27; v. 28, 44; ix. 27; in his name do we baptize, Acts ii. 38; viii. 16; xix. 5; in his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. v. 5. These my proofs from Scripture, Mr Hussey, p. 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 laws of disputation, my first proof, from Matt. xviii. 20, he quarrelleth upon a mere mistake of his own. He saith I brought it to prove the institution of church officers, and that to prove it, I do not appropriate the meeting in the name of Christ 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 Hussey's laws 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 less 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 logic in this consequence, it will not do. The sixth General Council, act. 17, apply unto their own œcumenical assembly that promise of Christ, Matt. xviii. 20, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name," &c. Protestant writers, both in their commentaries and polemic writings, do usually apply the same text to synods and councils; for instance, Calvin, Instit. lib. 4, cap. 9, sec. 1, 2, holds that the authority of councils 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 applied 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 con

troversy, and this is enough to justify 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 magistrate's 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. Whittaker's sense is plainly of sacred, and not of civil assemblies. And for that so much controverted text, Matt. xviii. 17, "tell the church," Whittaker expoundeth it, as we do, against the Erastians," tell the pastors and rulers of the church." Whittaker, de Eccles. quest. 1, cap. 2. Die Ecclesiæ, hoc est Pastoribus et Præfectis Ecclesiæ.

As for preaching, Mr Hussey saith, it is out of question that we preach in the name of Christ. Well, then, let him show such another thing of the magistrate as is, without controversy, 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 than the Scripture saith, yet he is pleased to object against me. "These places he citeth (saith he) to prove that we may baptize in the name of Jesus, as exclusively to Father and Holy Ghost (leaving out the words of the commission, Matt. xxviii., 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 accurately between Christ as Mediator and Second Person (he should have said as Second Person) in Trinity, in all this arguAnd so he concludes that which I ment." 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 baptism is administered in the name of Christ. Either Mr Hussey denieth that this is done in the name of Christ as Mediator, or he denieth it not. If he deny it, let him speak it out, and he shall not want an answer: meanwhile let him remember that himself, p. 25, saith, that Christ, as Mediator, did give that commission to the apostles, "Go, preach and baptize." If he deny 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 ministry. Again, either he admitteth a distinction between Christ as Mediator, and as Second Person in Trinity, or not. If he do not, he will infallibly wind himself into a gross heresy; as, namely, these two: He must deny that principle which, according to the word of God, all orthodox divines hold against the Arians and Antitrinitarians, that Christ, as Mediator, is subordinate unto, and lesser than the Father; but as Second Person in the Trinity, he is not subordinate unto, nor lesser than the Father, nor the Father greater than he, but as such he is equal with the Father in greatness, glory, and honour.1 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; therefore, 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 quarrel 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 Jesus Christ." But I speak 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 baptism Christ doth not command us to say either these words, "I baptize thee in the name of Christ;" or these, "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,

1 Synop. pur. Theol., disp. 26, thes. 29.-Tametsi ob istam mediationem filius Dei minor sit Patre, non propterea ipso minor est quoad Deitatem.

in Christ's 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 Hussey's confession. So that to preach and baptize eri τῷ ὀνόματι Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (which we find both of preaching, Luke xxiv. 47, and of baptizing, Acts ii. 38), comprehendeth a formal 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 baptize eis rò ovoμa unto, or into, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. xxviii. 19, this doth relate to the end and effect of baptism, or the good of the baptized (if we understand the words properly), not the authority of the baptizer, as if a formal 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, faith, 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. v. 5. Mr Hussey, p. 22, saith, I make great haste here. “Deliver to Satan (saith he) is not to excommunicate, &c. But grant that it were excommunication, &c., the decree was Paul's and not the Corinthians'." What is meant by delivering to Satan, belongs to another debate. Call it an apostolical act, or call it an ecclesiastical 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, they are no other than prelates, Papists, and Socinians have made before him, and which are answered long ago. That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man is acknow

1 Synops. pur. Theol, disp. 42, corol. 4.-An Apos

tolus Paulus cum hominem incestuosum Satanæ traderet, quicquam peculiare habuerit? Nos contra Socinianos Apostolum Paulum non ex jure sibi peculiari, sed sibi cum omnibus ecclesiæ presbyteris communi, incestuosum illum Satanæ tradisse, colligimus ex 1 Cor. v. 4; Matt. xviii. 17, 18.

ledged by Mr Prynne. That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Satan, 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 own, is delivered to Satan, who reigns without the church. That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a church act, and not an apostolical act only, 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 witness what the Apostle had done, but to join with him in the authoritative doing of it, ver. 4, 5. Again he saith to them, ver. 7, "Purge out therefore the old leaven;" ver. 12, "Do not ye judge them that are within ?" ver. 13, " Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." 3. It was 66 a censure inflicted by many," 2 Cor. ii. 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. ii. 7. Lastly, The Syriac maketh for us, which runneth thus,-ver. 4, "That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you may all be gathered together, and I with you in the Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ," ver. 5, "That you may deliver him to Satan," &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 anything in confidence that God will assist us: so Psal. xx. 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 business 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, p. 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 than 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, Col. iii. 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