ought to take special care of religion, of the conservation and purgation thereof, of the abolishing idolatry and superstition; and ought to be custos utriusque tabulæ, of the first as well as second table? I answer, that magistrates are appointed not only for civil policy, but for the conservation and purgation of religion, as is expressed in the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, before cited, we firmly believe as a most undoubted truth. But when divines make the object of magistracy to be only such things as belong to this life and to human society, they do not mean the object of the magistrate's care (as if he were not to take care of religion), but the object of his operation. The magistrate himself may not assume the administration of the keys, nor the dispensing of church censures; he can but punish the external man with external punishments. Of which more afterwards.

The seventh difference stands in the adjuncts; For, 1. The ecclesiastical power in presbyterial or synodical assemblies ought not to be exercised without prayer and calling upon the name of the Lord, Matt. xviii. 19: there is no such obligation upon the civil power, as that there may be no civil court of justice without prayer. 2. In divers cases civil jurisdiction hath been, and is, in the person of one man; but no ecclesiastical jurisdiction is committed to one man, but to an assembly, in which two at least must agree in the thing, as is gathered from the text last cited. 3. No private or secret of fence ought to be brought before an ecclesiastical court, except in the case of contumacy and impenitency after previous admonitions. This is the ordinary rule, not to dispute now extraordinary exceptions from that rule, but the civil power is not bound up by any such ordinary rule; for I suppose our opposites will hardly say (at least hardly make it good) that no civil injury or breach of law and justice, being privately committed, may be brought before a civil court, except first there be previous admonitions, and the party admonished prove obstinate and impenitent.

The eighth difference stands in the correlations. The correlatum of magistracy is people embodied in a commonwealth, or a civil corporation. The correlatum of the ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a church, or spiritual corporation. The commonwealth is not in the church, but the church is in the commonwealth; that is, one

is not therefore in or of the church, because he is in or of the commonwealth, of which the church is a part; but yet every one that is a member of the church is also a member of the commonwealth, of which that church is a part. The Apostle distinguisheth those that are without and those that are within in reference to the church, who were notwithstanding both sorts within in reference to the commonwealth, 1 Cor. v. 12, 13. The correlatum of the ecclesiastical power may be quite taken away by persecution, or by defection, when the correlatum of the civil power may remain, and therefore the ecclesiastical and the civil power do not se mutuo ponere et tollere.

Ninthly, There is a great difference in the ultimate termination. The ecclesiastical power can go no further than excommunication, or (in case of extraordinary warrants, and when one is known to have blasphemed against the Holy Ghost) to anathema maranatha. If one be not humbled and reduced by excommunication, the church can do no more but leave him to the judgment of God, who hath promised to ratify in heaven what his servants, in his name and according to his will, do upon earth. Salmasius spends a whole chapter in confuting the point of the coactive and magistratical jurisdiction of bishops, see Walo Messal. cap. 6. He acknowledgeth in that very place, p. 455, 456, 459, 462, that the elders of the church have, in common, the power of ecclesiastical discipline, to suspend from the sacrament and to excommunicate, and to receive the offender again upon the evidence of his repen

tance.

But the point he asserteth is, that bishops or elders have no such power as the magistrate hath, and that if he that is excommunicate do not care for it, nor submit himself, the elders cannot compel him; but the termination or quo usque of the civil power is quite different from this, "It is unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment," Ezra vii. 26.

Tenthly, They differ in a divided execution; that is, the ecclesiastical power ought to censure sometime one whom the magistrate thinks not fit to punish with temporal or civil punishments; and again, the magistrate ought to punish with the temporal sword, one whom the church ought not to cut off by the spiritual sword. This difference Pareus gives, Explic. Catech. quest. 85, art. 4, and it cannot be denied; for those

M

that plead most for liberty of conscience, and argue against all civil or temporal punishments of heretics, do notwithstanding acknowledge, that the church whereof they are members ought to censure and excommunicate them, and doth not her duty except she do so. The church may have reason to esteem one as an heathen and a publican that is no church member, whom yet the magistrate, in prudence and policy, doth permit to live in the commonwealth. Again, the most notorious and scandalous sinners, blasphemers, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, robbers, &c., when God gives them repentance, and the signs thereof do appear, the church doth not bind but loose them, doth not retain but remit their sins, I mean ministerially and declaratively; notwithstanding the magistrate may and ought to do justice according to law, even upon those penitent sinners.

CHAPTER V.

OF A TWOFOLD KINGDOM OF JESUS CHRIST: A GENERAL KINGDOM, AS HE IS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD, THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS, REIGNING OVER ALL CREATURES; AND A PARTICULAR KINGDOM, AS HE IS MEDIATOR REIGNING OVER THE CHURCH ONLY.

The controversy which hath been moved concerning the civil magistrate's vicegerentship, and the holding of his office of, and under, and for Jesus Christ, as he is Mediator, hath a necessary coherence with, and dependence upon, another controversy concerning a twofold kingdom of Jesus Christ: one, as he is the eternal Son of God, reigning together with the Father and the Holy Ghost over all things; and so the magistrate is his vicegerent, and holds his office of and under him; another, as Mediator and Head of the church, and so the magistrate doth not hold his office of and under Christ as his vicegerent. Wherefore, before I come to that question concerning the origin and tenure of the magistrate's office, I have thought good here to premise the enodation of the question concerning the twofold kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a distinction which Mr Hussey cannot endure, and no marvel, for it overturneth the foundation of his opinion. He looks upon

it as

an absurd assertion, p. 25, "Shall he have one kingdom as Mediator, and another as God?" He quarrelleth all that I have said of the twofold kingdom of Christ, and will not admit that Christ, as Mediator, is King of the church only, p. 25-27, 35-37.

The controversy draweth deeper than he is aware of, for Socinians and Photinians, finding themselves puzzled with those arguments which (to prove the eternal godhead of Jesus Christ) were drawn from such scriptures as call him " God, Lord, the Son of God;" also from such scriptures as ascribe worship and adoration to him, and from the texts which ascribe to him a supreme lordship, dominion, and kingdom over all things (for this hath been used as one argument for the godhead of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father, "The Father reigns, the Son reigns, the Holy Ghost reigns, vide lib. Isaaci Clari Hispani Adversus Varimadum Arianum), thereupon they devised this answer, That Jesus Christ, in respect of his kingly office, and as Mediator, is called God, and Lord, and the Son of God (of which see Fest. Honnii Specimen Controv. Belgic., p. 24; Jonas Schlichtingius contra Meisnerum, p. 436); and that in the same respect he is worshipped, that in the same respect he is King, and that the kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth to Jesus Christ, is only as Mediator and Head of the church, and that he hath no such universal dominion over all things as can prove him to be the eternal Son of God. This gave occasion to orthodox Protestant writers more fully and distinctly to assert the great difference between that which the Scripture saith of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, and that which it saith of him as he is Mediator; and particularly to assert a twofold kingdom of Jesus Christ, and to prove from Scripture that, besides that kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, he hath another kingdom over all things, which belongs to him only as he is the eternal Son of God. This the Socinians to this day do contradict, and stiffly hold that Christ hath but one kingdom, which he exerciseth as Mediator over the church, and in some respect over all things; but by no means they admit that Christ, as God, reigneth over all things. But our writers still hold up against them the distinction of that twofold kingdom of Jesus Christ, see Stegmanni Photinianismus, disp. 27, quest. 6. The same distinction of the twofold kingdom of

Christ, as God and as Mediator, is frequently to be found in Protestant writers, see Synops. pur. Theol., disp. 26, thes. 53; Gomarus in Obad. ver. ult.; the late English Annotations on 1 Cor. xv. 24, and many others. Let Polanus speak for the rest.1 See also the same distinction cleared and asserted by Mr Apollonius in his Jus Majestatis Circa Sacra, part 1, p. 33, et seq.

The arguments to prove that distinction of the twofold kingdom of Christ are these: First, Those kingdoms-of which the one is accessory and adventitious to the Son of God, and which, if it were not, the want of it could not prove him not to be God; the other necessarily floweth from his godhead, so that without it he were not God-are most different and distinct kingdoms. But the kingdom of Christ as Mediator, and the kingdom of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, are such; therefore, if the Son of God had never received the office of Mediator, and so should not have reigned as Mediator, yet he had been the natural Son of God; for this could not be a necessary consequence: He is the natural Son of God, therefore he is Mediator; for he had been the natural Son of God though he had not been Mediator, and though man had not been redeemed. But if you suppose that the Son of God reigns not, as God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost from everlasting to everlasting, then you must needs suppose that he is not the natural and eternal Son of God.

Secondly, Those kingdoms, of which the one is proper and personal to Jesus Christ as God-man, the other not proper and personal, but common to the Father and the Holy Ghost, are most different and distinct kingdoms; but the kingdom of Jesus Christ as Mediator, and his kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God, are such. Therefore, that kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, by special dispensation of God

1 Synt. Theol., lib. 6, cap. 29.-Regnum Christi vel naturale est, vel donativum. Regnum Christi naturale est quod Christus a natura habet, estque communis totius Deitatis, etc. Hos regnum etiam universale dicitur, quia est simpliciter in universa. At regnum Christi donativum est quod Christus tradium a Patre ut Dáveganos accepit, etc. Hoc regnum est proprium Christi, quod ut Rex Mediator obtinet in persona sua: ac regnum etiam singulare dicitur quia est peculiare in ecclesia, etc. Utque naturale regnum obtinet jure naturæ, quia est naturalis filius Dei Patris: ita donativum regnum obtinet jure donationis.

committed to him, is his alone properly and personally; for we cannot say that the Father reigns as Mediator, or that the Holy Ghost reigns as Mediator. But that kingdom which Christ hath, as he is the eternal Son of God, is the very same consubstantially with that kingdom whereby God the Father and God the Holy Ghost do reign.

Thirdly, He that hath a kingdom which shall be continued and exercised forever, and a kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised forever, hath two distinct kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a kingdom which shall be continued and exercised forever, namely, the kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God; and another kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised forever, namely, the kingdom which he hath as Mediator: Therefore, the eternity of the one kingdom is not doubted of: but that the other kingdom shall not be forever exercised, that is, that Christ shall not forever reign as Mediator, is proved from 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25.1 Mr Hussey, p. 35—37, goeth about to answer this argument, which he confesseth to say something; and indeed it saith so much, that though he maketh an extravagant exception-" Doth it appear," saith he, "that the kingdom that he shall lay down to God his Father, is not over all the world?"

yet he plainly yields the point which I was then proving. "Christ (saith he), in the day of judgment, shall lay down all the office of Mediatorship." I hope he will not say that Christ shall lay down at the day of judgment that kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God. So then I have what I was seeking, that Christ hath one kingdom as Mediator, another as the eternal Son of God. And whereas Mr Hussey holdeth that Christ, as Mediator, reigns over all things as the vicar of his Father, we shall see anon the weakness of his arguments brought to prove it. Meanwhile, I ask, What then is that kingdom which belongs to Christ as the eternal Son of God, and which shall not be laid down, but continue forever? Let him think on this argument. Whatsoever belongs to that kingdom which shall be continued forever, and shall not be laid down at

1 Synt. pur. Theol. disp. 26, thes. 35.-Ipsi (Patri) suum quoque sceptrum Mediatorium seu œconomicum traditurus dicitur, ut imperium mere divinum eadem gloria ac majestate cum Patre, erga suos electos in æternum exerceat. Zach. Ursinus, tom. 1, 398.-Christus Patri tradet regnum post glorificationem ecclesiæ, id est, desinet facere officium Mediatoris.

the day of judgment, doth belong to Christ, not as Mediator, but as the eternal Son of God. But the general power and dominion by which Jesus Christ exerciseth sovereignty over all creatures, without exception, doing to them, and fulfilling upon them all the good pleasure of his will, belongs to that kingdom which shall be continued forever, and shall not be laid down at the day of judgment; therefore, that general power and dominion by which Jesus Christ exerciseth sovereignty over all creatures, without exception, doing to them, and fulfilling upon them, all the good pleasure of his will, doth belong to Christ, not as Mediator, but as the eternal Son of God. And thus I make a transition to another argument.

Fourthly, He that hath a kingdom administered by and in evangelical ordinances, and a kingdom administered by his divine power, without evangelical ordinances, hath two different and distinct kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a kingdom administered by and in evangelical ordinances, and a kingdom administered by his divine power, without evangelical ordinances; therefore, doth not Jesus Christ reign over devils and damned spirits by his divine power, reserving them in chains of darkness to the judgment of the great day? But will Mr Hussey say that Christ reigns over the devils and damned spirits as Mediator, or by the same kingdom by which he reigns in his church by and in his ordinances? Therefore we must needs say, that Christ hath one kingdom as the eternal Son of God, another as Mediator.

Fifthly, He that hath a kingdom in subordination to God the Father, and as his vicegerent, and another kingdom wherein he is not subordinate unto, but equal with God the Father, hath two most different kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a kingdom in subordination to God the Father, and another kingdom wherein he is not subordinate unto, but equal with God the Father; therefore, the kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, doth (in regard of the office of Mediatorship) constitute him in a subordination to his Father, whose commandments he executeth, and to whom he gives an account of his ministration. So that though he that is Mediator, being the eternal Son of God, is equal with the Father, yet as Mediator he is not equal with the Father, but subordinate to the Father; which our divines prove from these scriptures,-Isa. xlii. 1, "Behold my servant;"

John xiv. 28, "My Father is greater than I;" 1 Cor. xi. 3, "The head of Christ is God." In the same consideration as Christ is our head, God is Christ's head, namely, as Christ is Mediator. But that kingdom which Christ hath as he is the eternal Son of God, he holds it not in a subordination to God the Father, but as being consubstantial with his Father, and thinking it no robbery to be called equal with God; so that, in this consideration, the Father is not greater than he. Mr Hussey, p. 37, saith of Christ, in respect of the government which he hath as Mediator, "He is as it were the vicar of his Father." I hope he will not say so of that government which Christ hath as the eternal Son of God. And, p. 27, he holds that Christ, as Mediator, is subject to God; "but in the consideration that Christ is the second person of Trinity, so he is not inferior to God the Father." So that he himself cannot but yield my argument.

Sixthly, If Christ hath a kingdom in time dispensed and delegated to him, and unto which he was anointed, and hath another kingdom which is not delegated, nor in time dispensed, nor he anointed to it, but doth necessarily and naturally accompany the communication of the divine nature to him by eternal generation, then he hath two very different kingdoms: one as he is Mediator, another as he is the eternal Son of God. But Christ hath a kingdom in time dispensed and delegated, &c. If you speak of Christ as Mediator, God hath made him both Lord and Christ, Acts ii. 36, but as he is the eternal Son of God, he is not Dominus factus; he is not made Lord and King, any more than he is made the natural Son of God. When the Psalmist speaketh of that kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, he tells us of the anointing of Christ, Psal. xlv. 6, "The sceptre of thy kingdon is a right sceptre;" ver. 7, "Thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness." But we cannot say that Christ was anointed to that kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God.

Seventhly, If the Scripture holds forth a kingdom which Christ hath over all creatures, and another kingdom which he hath over the church only, then it holds forth the twofold kingdom which I plead for, and which Mr Hussey denieth. But the Scripture holds forth, &c.: Christ, as he is "God over all, blessed forever," Rom. ix. 5, exerciseth sovereignty and dominion over all