A Brotherly Examination of Mr. Coleman's Sermon

A Brotherly Examination of some passages of Mr. Colemans late Sermon upon Job 11:20. as it is now Printed and published: By which he has to the great offence of very many, endeavoured to strike at the very root of all Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall Government, contrary to the Word of God, the solemn League and Covenant, other reformed Churches, and the Votes of the Honourable Houses of Parliament, after advice had with the Reverend and Learned Assembly of Divines.

I Have before touched this purpose in the third branch of the third Application of my second Doctrine: and did in my Sermon in the Abbey Church, expresse my thoughts of it at some length. But as I was then unwilling to fall upon such a Controversie so publickly, & especially in a Fast Sermon, if that which I intend to examine had not been as publikly and upon the like occasion delivered: So now in the publishing, I have thought good to open my mind, concerning this thing distinctly, and by itselfe. That which had been too late to be preached after Sermon, is not too late to be Printed after Sermon. Others (upon occasion offred) have given their testimony against his Doctrine; and I should think my self unfaithful in the Trust put upon me, if upon such an occasion I should be silent in this businesse: and I beleeve no man will think it strange, that a peece of this nature and strain get an Answer: and I go about it, without any disrespect either to the person or parts of my Reverend Brother. Onely I must give a testimony to the truth when I hear it spoken against, and I hope his Objections have made no such impression in any mans mind, as to make him unwilling to hear an Answer. Come we therefore to the particulars.

Foure rules were offered by the Reverend Brother, as tending to Unity, and to the healing of the present Controversies about Church-Government. But in truth his cure is worse than the disease: and instead of making any agreement, he is like to have his hand against every man, and every mans hand against him.

The first Rule was this. Establish as few things Jure Divino as can well be. Which is by Interpretation, as little fine gold, and as much drosse as can well be. The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. What you take from the Word of God is fine gold tried in the fire. But an holy thing of mans devising is the drosse of silver. Can he not be content to have the drosse purged from the silver, except the silver it self be cast away? The very contrary rule is more sure and safe, which I prove thus.

If it be a sin to diminish or take ought from the Word of God, in so much that it is forbiden under pain of taking away a mans part out of the Book of Life and out of the holy City: then as many things as are to be established Jure Divino, as can well be. But it is a sin to diminish or take ought from the Word of God, in so much that it is forbiden under pain of taking away a mans part out of the book of life, and out of the holy City. Therefore as many things are to be established Jure Divino, as can well be.

It must be remembred withall. 1. That the question is not now whether this or that form of Church-Government be Jure Divino? but whether a Church-Government be Jure Divino? Whether Jesus Christ have thus far revealed his will in his Word, that there are to be Church-censures, and those to be dispenced by Church-Officers? The Brother is for the Negative of this Question. 2. Neither is it stood upon by any (so far as I know) that what the Parliament shall establish concerning Church-Government, must be established by them Jure divino. If the Parliament shall in a Parliamentary and Legislative way establish that thing which really and in it self is agreeable to the Word of God, though they do not declare it to be the will of Jesus Christ, I am satisfied, and I am confident so are others. This I confesse, that it is incumbent to Parliament-Men, to Ministers, and to all other Christians, according to their vocation and interest, to search the Scriptures, and thereby to inform their own and other mens consciences, so as they may do in faith what they do in point of Church-Government, that is, that they may know they are not sinning, but doing the will of God. And it ought to be no prejudice nor exception against a form of Church-Government that many learned and godly divines do assert it from Scripture, to be the will of God. And why should Jus divinum be such a Noli me tangere? The reason was given: This was the only thing that kindered union in the Assembly, (says he) Two parties came biased, The Reverend Commissioners from Scotland, were for the Jus Divinum of the Presbyteriall; The Independents for the Congregationall Government. How should either move? Where should they both meet? If it was thus, how shall he make himself blamelesse, who made union in the Assembly, yet more difficult, because he came byased a third way, with the Erastian Tenents? And where he asketh, where the Independents and we should meet? I answer, in holding a Church-Government Jure Divino, that is, that the Pastors and Elders ought to suspend or excommunicate (according to the degree of the offence) scandalous sinners. Who can tell, but the purging of the Church from scandals, and the keeping of the Ordinances pure (when it shall be actually seen to be the great thing endeavoured on both sides) may make union between us and the Independents more easie than many imagine. As for his exception against us, who are Commissioners from the Church of Scotland, I thank God its but such, yes not so much as the Arminians did object against the forragne divines who came to the Synod of Dort. They complained that those divines were pre-ingaged and byased in regard of the judgement of those Churches from which they came: And that therefore they did not help but hinder union in that Assembly. And might not the Arrians have thus excepted against Alexander, who was ingaged against them before he came to the Councell of Nice? Might not the Nestorians have made the same exception against Cyrill, because he was under an engagement against them, before he came to the Councell of Ephesus? Nay, had not the Jewish Zealots, the very same objection to make against Paul and Barnabas, who were ingaged (not in the behalf of one Nation, but of all the Churches of the Gentiles) against the imposition of the Mosaicall Rites, and had so declared themselves at Antioch, before they came to the Synod at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2)? It's not fault to be engaged for the truth, but against the truth: It's not blame-worthy, but praise-worthy to hold fast so much as we have already attain'd to. Notwithstanding we, for our part, have also from the beginning professed, That we are most willing to hear and learn from the Word of God, what needeth futher to be reformed in the Church of Scotland?

The second rule which was offered in that Sermon, was this; Let all precepts, held out as divine institutions, have clear Scriptures, &c. let the Scripture speak expressely, (says he.) I answer; The Scripture speaks in that manner, which seemed fittest to the wisdom of God, that is, so as it must cost us much searching of the Scripture, as men search for a hid treasure, before we find out what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God concerning the government of his Church. Will any Divine in the world deny that it is a divine truth, which by necessarie consequence is drawn from Scripture, as well as that which in expresse words and syllables is written in Scripture? Are not divers articles of our profession, for instance the baptism of Infants necessarily and certainly proved from Scripture, although it make no expresse mention thereof in words and syllables? But let us hear what he has said concerning some Scriptures (for he names but two of them) upon which the acts of spiritual or ecclesiastical government have been grounded. That place, 1 Corinthians 5, takes not hold (says he) on my conscience for excommunication, and I admire that Matthew 18 so should upon any. It's strange that he should superciliously pass them over without respect to so great a cloud of witnesses in all the Reformed Churches, or without so much as offering any answer at all to the arguments which so many learned and godly divines of old and of late have drawn from these places for excommunication; which if he had done, he should not want a Reply. In the meantime, he intermixeth a politick consideration into this debate of divine right. I could never yet see (says he) how two co-ordinate governments exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one State. I suppose he has seen the co-ordinate governments of a General, and of an Admiral; or if we shall come lower, the governments of parents over their children, and masters over their servants, though it fall often out, that he who is subject to one man as his master, is subject to another man as his father. In one ship there may be two coordinate governments, the Captain governing the soldiers, the Master governing the Mariners. In these and such like cases, you have two co-ordinate governments, when the one Governor is not subordinate to the other. There is more subordination in the Ministers and other Church-officers toward the civil Magistrate. For the Ministers of Christ must be in subjection to the Magistrate; and if he be not, he is punishable by the Law of the Land as well as any other subject. The persons and estates of Church-officers and all that they have in this world is subject to civil authority. But that which is Christ's and not ours, the royal prerogative of the King of Saints, in governing of his Church, according to his own will, is not subject to the pleasure of any man living. But the Reverend Brother might well have spared this. It is not the independency of the Church-government upon the civil government, which he intended to speak against. It is the very thing itself, a Church-government, as is manifest by his other two rules.

I come therefore to his next, which is the third rule, Lay no more burden of government upon the shoulders of Ministers, then Christ has plainly laid upon them. He means none at all, as is manifest not only by his fourth rule, where he says, that he finds no institution of other Governments beside Magistracy, but also by the next words, The Ministers have other work to do, says he, and such as will take up the whole man. He might have added this one word more, that without the power of Church-government, when Ministers have done all that ever they can, they shall not keep themselves nor the Ordinances from pollution. Before I proceed any further, let it be remembered when he excludes Ministers from Government. First, it is from spiritual or ecclesiastical Government, for the question is not of civil Government. Secondly, he excludes ruling Elders too, and therefore ought to have mentioned them with the Ministers, as those who are to draw the same yoke together, rather than to tell us of an innate enmity between the Clergy and the Laity. The keeping up of the names of the Clergy and Laity savors more of a domineering power, than any thing the Brother can charge upon Presbyteries. It is a point of controversy between Bellarmine and those that writ against him, he holding up, and they crying down those names, because the Christian people are the [in non-Latin alphabet] the heritage of the Lord, as well as the Ministers. Thus much by the way of that distinction of names. And for the thing itself, to object an innate enmity between the Ministers of the Gospel and those that are not Ministers, is no less than a dishonouring and aspersing of the Christian Religion. To return, you see his words tend to the taking away of all Church-Government out of the hands of Church-Officers. Now may we know his reasons? He fetches the ground of an Argument out of his own heart; I have a heart (says he) that knew better how to be governed, than govern. I wish his words might hold true in a sense of pliableness and yielding to Government. How he knows to govern I know not; but it should seem in this particular he knows not how to be governed. For after both Houses of Parliament have concluded, That many particular Congregations shall be under one Presbyterial Government, he still acknowledges no such thing as Presbyterial Government. I dare be bold to say, He is the first Divine in all the Christian world that ever advised a State to give no government to Church-Officers, after the State had resolved to establish Presbyterian Government. But let us take the strength of his Argument as he pretends it. He means not of an humble pliableness and subjection (for that should ease him from his fear of an ambitious ensnarement, and so were contrary to his intention) but of a sinful infirmity and ambition in the heart, which makes it fitter for him and others to be kept under the yoke, than to govern. And thus his Argumentation runs, Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why I may not (God fashions mens hearts alike; and as in water face answers face, so the heart of man to man) I ingeniously profess, I have a heart that knows better how to be governed, than govern: I fear an ambitious ensnarement, and I have cause; I see what raised Prelacy and Papacy to such a height, &c. The two Scriptures will not prove what he would. The first of them, (Psalm 33:15) He fashions their hearts alike, gives him no ground at all, except it be the homonomy of the English word alike, which in this place notes nothing else but [in non-Latin alphabet], all mens hearts are alike in this, that God fashions them all, and therefore knows them all aeque or alike (that is the scope of the place). The Hebrew Jachad is used in the same sense, (Ezra 4:3) We ourselves together will build; they mean not they will all build in the like fashion, or in the same manner, but that they will build all of them together, one as well as another. So (Psalm 2:2) The rulers take counsel together, (Jeremiah 46:12) they are fallen both together. The other place, (Proverbs 27:19) if you take it word by word as it is in the Hebrew is thus, As in water faces to faces, so the heart of man to man. Our Translators add the word answereth, but the Hebrew will suffer the negative reading, As in waters faces answer not to faces. The Septuagints read, As faces are not like faces, so neither are the hearts of men alike. The Chaldee paraphrase thus, As waters and as countenances which are not like one another, so the heart of the sons of men are not alike. Thus does Master Cartwright in his judicious Commentary give the sense, As in the water face does not answer fully to face, but in some sort, so there may be a conjecture, but no certain knowledge of the heart of man. But let the Text be read affirmatively, not negatively, what shall be the sense? Some take it thus, A mans heart may be someway seen in his countenance, as a face in the water. Others thus, As a face in the water is various and changeable to him that looks upon it, so is the heart of man inconstant to a friend that trusts in him. Others thus, As a man sees his own face in the water, so he may see himself in his own heart or conscience. Others thus, As face answers face in the water, so he that looks for a friendly affection from others, must show it in himself. It will never be proved that any such thing is intended in that place, as may warrant this argumentation: There is such a particular corruption in one mans heart, for instance, Ambition, which makes him unfit to be trusted with Government; therefore the same corruption is in all other mens hearts: even as the face in the water answers the face out of the water so just, that there is not a spot or blemish in the one but it is in the other. I am sure Paul taught us not so, when he said, In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves (Philippians 2:3). No, the Brother himself has taken off the edge of his own Argument (if it had any) in his Epistle printed before his Sermon, where speaking of his Brethren, from whose judgment he dissents in point of Government, he has these words, Whose wisdom and humility (I speak it confidently) may safely be trusted with as large a share of Government as they themselves desire. Well, but suppose now the same corruption to be in other mens hearts, that they are in great danger of an ambitious ensnarement, if they be trusted with Government. Is this corruption only in the hearts of Ministers, or is it in the hearts of all other men? I suppose he will say in all mens hearts; and then his Argument will conclude against all civil Government. Last of all, admit that there be just fears of abusing the Power and Government Ecclesiastical; let the persons to be intrusted with it be examined, and the power itself bounded according to the strictest rules of Christ. Let abuses be prevented, reformed, corrected. The abuse cannot take away the use, where the thing itself is necessary. Why might he not have satisfied himself without speaking against the thing itself. Once indeed he seems to recool, and says, Only I would have it so bounded, that it might be said, Hitherto shall you come, and here shall you stay your proud waves; yet by and by he passes his own bounds, and totally renounces the Government to the civil Power, which I shall speak to anon. But I must first ask, From where is this fear of the proud swelling waves of Presbyterial Government? Where have they done hurt? Was it upon the coast of France, or upon the coast of Holland, or upon the coast of Scotland? Or where was it? Or was the dashing upon Terra incognita? He that would forewarn men to beware of Presbyterial usurpations, (for so the Brother speaking to the present Controversy about Church-Government must be apprehended) and to make good what he says, falls upon the stories of Pope Paul the 5. and of the Bishop of Canterbury, is not a little wide from the mark. I should have expected some examples of evils and mischiefs which Presbyterial Government has brought upon other reformed Churches.

Well, the Reverend Brother has not done, but he proceedeth thus; in as the King of Sodom's speech to Abraham, Give me the persons, takes the goods; So say I, Give us Doctrine, take you the Government as [illegible] said: Right Honourable, give me leave to make this request in the behalf of the Ministry, give us two things and we shall do well; 1 Give us learning; And 2 Give us a competency.

This calls to mind a Story which Clemens Alexandrinus tells us; When one had painted Helena with much gold, Apelles looking upon it, Friend, (says he) when you could not make her fair, you have made her rich. Learning and competency do enrich: The Jesuits have enough of both, but that which makes a visible Ministerial Church to be beautiful as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem: That which makes fair the outward face of a Church, is Government and Discipline, the removing of scandals, the preserving of the Ordinances from pollution. He had spoken more for the honor of God, and for the power of godliness, if he had said this in the behalf of the Ministry, It were better for us to want competency and helps to learning, then to partake with other men's sins, by admitting the scandalous and profane to the Lord's Table; his way which he advises, will perhaps get us an able Ministry, and procure us honor enough, as he speaks, but (sure) it can neither preserve the purity, nor advance the power of Religion, because it puts no black mark upon profaneness and scandal in Church Members, more than in any others. The King of Sodom's speech cannot serve his turn, except it be turned over, and then it will serve him as just as any thing, thus, Give us the goods, take you the persons, (or the souls, as the Hebrew and the Chaldee has it) Give us a competency, says he, here he asks the goods, Take you the Government, here he quits the persons or souls to be governed only by the civil power. However, as at that time Abraham would take nothing that was not his own, insomuch as he answered the King of Sodom, I will not take from a thread, even to a shoe latchet, and I will not take any thing that is yours: So this Parliament, I trust, shall be so counselled and guided of the Lord, that they will leave to the Church, what is the Church's, or rather to Christ what is Christ's. And as Abraham had lift up his hand to the most high God, to do that; so have the Honourable Houses, with hands lifted up to the most high God, promised to do this.

And now seeing I have touched upon the Covenant, I wish the Reverend Brother may seriously consider, whether he has not violated the Oath of God, in advising the Parliament to lay no burden of Government upon Church Officers, but to take the Government of the Church wholly into their own hands. In the first Article of the solemn League and Covenant, there is three times mention made of the Government of the Church; and namely, That we shall endeavour the Reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government, according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches. Where observe, 1. The extirpation of Church-Government is not the Reformation of it. The second Article is indeed of things to be extirpated; but this of things to be preserved and reformed. Therefore, as by the Covenant Prelacy was not to be reformed, but to be abolished: so by the same Covenant Church Government was not to be abolished, but to be reformed. 2. Church-Government is mentioned in the Covenant as a spiritual, not a civil thing. The matters of Religion are put together; Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government: The privileges of Parliament come after, in the third Article. 3. That clause, according to the Word of God, implies, that the Word of God holds forth such light to us, as may guide and direct us in the Reformation of Church-Government. 4. And will the Brother say, that the example of the best reformed Churches leads us his way, that is, To have no Church-Government at all distinct from the Civil Government?

And so much concerning his third Rule.

The fourth was this: A Christian Magistrate, as a Christian Magistrate, is a Governor in the Church. And who denies this? The question is, Whether there ought to be no other Government in the Church, beside that of the Christian Magistrate. That which he drives at, is, That the Christian Magistrate should leave no power of spiritual Censures to the Elderships. He would have the Magistrate to do like the rich man in the Parable, who had exceeding many Flocks and Herds, and yet did take away the little ewe-lamb from the poor man, who had nothing save that. The Brother says, Of other Governments besides Magistracy, I find no institution; of them I do, (Romans 13:1, 2). I am sorry he sought no better, else he had found more. Subjection and obedience is commanded, as due, not only to Civil, but to Spiritual Governors, to those that are over us in the Lord (1 Thessalonians 5:12). So (1 Timothy 5:17), Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor. (Hebrews 13:7), Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the Word of God. Verse 17, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls. And what understands he by him that rules (Romans 12:8)? If the judgment of Gualther and Bullinger have any weight with him (as I suppose it has) they do not there exclude, but take in, under that word, the ruling Officers of the Church.

But now in the close, let the Reverend Brother take heed he has not split upon a Rock, and taken from the Magistrate more than he has given him. He says, Christian Magistrates are to manage their Office under Christ, and for Christ. Christ has placed governments in his Church (1 Corinthians 12:28, &c). I find all Government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator (I desire all to consider it) (Ephesians 1:3, last verse), and Christ as Head of these given to the Church. If this be good Divinity, then I am sure it will be the hardest task which ever he took in hand, to uphold and assert the Authority either of Pagan or Christian Magistrates.

First, he lets the Pagan or Infidel Magistrate fall to the ground, as an Usurper who has no just title to reign, because all Government is given to Christ and to him as Mediator: But which way was the Authority of Government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a Pagan Prince or Emperor?

Next, he will make it to fare little better with the Christian Magistrate: For if the Christian Magistrate be the Vice-gerent of Christ, and of Christ as Mediator; and if he be to manage his office under and for Christ; then the Reverend Brother must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as Mediator, has given such a Commission of Vice-gerent-ship and Deputy-ship to the Christian Magistrate; or otherwise acknowledge that he has given a most dangerous wound to Magistracie, and made it an empty title, claiming that power which it has no warrant to assume.

God and Nature has made Magistrates, and given them great authority: But from Christ as Mediator they have it not.

I finde in Scripture, that Church-Officers have their power from Christ as Mediator, and they are to manage their office under and for Christ, and in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ do we assemble our selves together (Matthew 18:20), in his Name do we preach (Luke 24:47; Acts 4:17, 18; and 5:28, 44; and 9:27), in his Name do we baptize (Acts 2:38; and 4:12, 16; and 19:5), in his Name do we excommunicate (1 Corinthians 5:5). But I do not find in Scripture that the Magistrate is to rule, or to make Laws, or to manage any part of his office in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And as the Mediator has not any where given such a Commission and power to the Magistrate: so, as Mediator, he had it not to give: For he was not made a Judge in Civil affairs (Luke 12:14), and his Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). How can that power which Christ as Mediator has not received of the Father, be derived from Christ to the Christian Magistrate? I know that Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God, does with the Father and the holy Ghost reign and rule over all the Kingdoms of the sons of men. He that is Mediator, being God, has, as God, all power in heaven and earth, (and this power was given to him (Matthew 28:18) both by the eternal Generation, and by the declaration of him to be the Son of God with power, when he was raised from the dead (Romans 1:4), even as he said to be begotten, when he was raised again (Acts 13:33), he had relinquished and laid aside his Divine Dominion and Power, when he had made himself in the form of a servant; but after his Resurrection it's gloriously manifested.) And so he that is Mediator, being God, has power to subdue his and his Churches enemies, and to make his foes his footstool. But as Mediator he is only the Churches King, Head and Governor, and has no other Kingdom. The Phatinians have defined the Kingly Office of Christ thus: It is an Office committed to him by God, to govern with the highest authority and power all creatures endued with understanding, and especially men, and the Church gathered of them. But those that have written against them have corrected their definition in this particular, because Christ is properly King of his Church only.

As for those two Scriptures which the Brother citeth, they are extremely misapplied. He citeth (1 Corinthians 12:28) to prove that Christ has placed Civil Governments in his Church. If by the Governments or Governors there mentioned, be understood the Civil Magistrates; yet that place says not that Christ has placed them, but that God has done it.

Next, the Apostle speaks of such Governors as the Church had at that time; but at that time the Church had no godly nor Christian Magistrates. This is Calvin's argument, whereby he proves that Ecclesiastical, not Civil Governors, are there meant.

Thirdly, I ask, How can we conceive that Civil Government can come into the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Administrations? for such are all the rest there reckoned forth.

Lastly, the Brother, after second thoughts, may think he has done another disservice to the Magistrate, in making the Magistracy to be below and behind the Ministry. The Apostle puts them in this order: God has set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles, then gifts of Healings, Helps, Governments, &c. How makes the Brother this to agree with his Interpretation?

Next, he citeth (Ephesians 1:21, 22, 33) to prove that all Government is given to Christ, and to him as Mediator; and Christ, as head of these, given to the Church. But this place maketh more against him then for him: for the Apostle says not that Christ is given to the Church as the Head of all Principalities and Powers. The Brother says so; and in saying so, he makes Christ a Head to those that are not of his Body.

The Apostle says far otherwise, that God gave Christ to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is his Body; which the Syriack readeth more plainly, And him who is over all, he gave to be the Head to the Church. He is a Head to none but the Church: but he who is Head to the Church is over all, God [illegible] forever (Romans 9:5), yes, even as man, he is over or above all. The very human nature of Christ which was raised from the dead, being set at the right hand of the Majesty of God, is exalted to a higher degree of honor and glory, then either man or Angel ever was, or ever shall be: So that he that is Head of the Church, is over all, because he does not only excell his own members, but excell all creatures that ever God made. It is one thing to say that Christ is exalted to a dignity, excellency, preeminence, majesty, and glory, far above all Principality, and Power, and Might, and Dominion: Another thing to say that Christ is head of all Principalities and Governments, and as Mediator exercises his Kingly Office over these. The Apostle says the former, but not the latter.

Shall I need to illustrate this distinction? Is there any thing more known in the world? Will any say, that he who excels other men in dignity, splendor, honor, and glory, must therefore reign and rule over all those whom he thus excels?

The Apostle says indeed, in another sense, that Christ is the Head of all Principality and Power (Colossians 2:10). But that is spoken of Christ not as he is Mediator, but only as he is God: And the Apostle's meaning in those words is nothing but this; That Christ is true God, says Tosanus; That he is Omnipotent, says Gualther; That he, being the natural Son of God, is together with the Father Lord of all things, says Bullinger.

That this is the meaning, will soon appear: 1. From the scope of the place, which is to teach the Colossians not to worship Angels, because they are but servants, and the Son of God is their Lord and Head. 2. The Apostle expounds himself, how Christ is the Head of all Principality and power (Colossians 1:15, 16, 17): "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or [illegible]minions, or principalities or powers: All things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Now all this is without controversy, to be understood, not of the office, but of the person of Jesus Christ; not of his governing and kingly office, as he is Mediator, but to prove that he is true and very God. Therefore Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tissanus, M. Bayne, and divers other interpreters upon the place, do generally agree, that the Apostle, verses 15, 16, 17, speaks of the dignity and excellency of the person of Jesus Christ, proving him to be true God; and that verse 17 he comes to speak of his office, as he is Mediator: "And he is the Head of the Body, the Church," etc. So that we may distinguish a twofold headship of Jesus Christ. One, in regard of his Godhead; and so he is Head of all Principality and Power. Another in regard of his office of Mediatorship; and so he is Head of the Church only. The present question is of the latter, not of the former. The former is common to the Son of God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost; the latter is proper to Christ God and man. The former shall continue for ever; the latter shall not continue for ever. The former does not necessarily suppose the latter; but the latter does necessarily suppose the former. Christ can reign as God, though he reign not as Mediator; but he cannot reign as Mediator, and not reign as God. The object of the former is every creature; the object of the latter is the Church gathered out of the world.

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

And now (I desire all to consider it) there is not one word in those three last verses of Ephesians 1 which will give any ground for that which the brother with so much confidence affirms. Verse 21 affords this argument against him. The honor and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of, has place not only in this world, but in that which is to come. But the kingdom and government which is given to Christ as Mediator, shall not continue in the world to come (for when Christ has put his enemies under his feet, he shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and reign no longer as Mediator (1 Corinthians 15:24, 25)). Therefore the government given to Christ, as he is Mediator, cannot be meant in that place, but the dignifying, honoring, preferring and exalting of Christ, to a higher degree of glory than either man or Angel.

Come on now, and see whether verse 22 makes any whit more for him: "He has put all things under his feet;" that is, says Zanchius, all things but the Church, which is his Body. But this must be meant in respect of the decree and foreknowledge of God, as Hierome expounds the place; and so does the Scripture expound itself (Hebrews 2:8): "But now we see not yet all things put under him." 1 Corinthians 15:25: "He must reign till he has put all his enemies under his feet." Acts 2:34, 35: "Sit you on my right hand till I make your foes your footstool." Now when Christ shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power, and shall put his enemies under his feet; then he shall cease to reign any more as Mediator (which I have even now proved); but before that be done, he reigns as Mediator. So that it can never be proved, that the meaning of these words, "He has put all things under his feet," is, that all government in this world is given to Christ as Mediator; and whoever says so, must needs acknowledge, that Christ's exercising of government (as he is Mediator) over all principalities and powers, shall continue after all things shall be put under his feet; or that Christ shall not govern as Mediator, till all things be put under his feet; which is so contrary to the Apostle's meaning, that Christ shall then cease to reign as Mediator.

The next words, "And he gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church," do furnish another argument against him. Christ's headship and his government as Mediator, are commensurable, and of an equal extent. Christ is a Head to none but to his Church; therefore no government is given to him as Mediator, but the government of his Church.

The last verse does further confirm that which I say: for the Apostle continuing his speech of the Church, says, "Which is his Body, the fullness of him that fills all in all." He calls the Church Christ's fullness, in reference to his headship, that which makes him full and complete so far as he is a Head or King: having his Church fully gathered, he has his complete kingdom, his perfect Body; and this being done, he wants nothing, so far as he is Mediator. So that the Holy Ghost does here as it were on purpose anticipate this opinion, lest any should think all civil government is given to Christ as Mediator. Though, as God, he fills heaven and earth; yet, as Mediator, his filling of all in all extends no further than his Body, his Church, which is therefore called his fullness.

Finally, to avoid the mistake of this place, and upon the whole matter; let these three things be well distinguished, in the Mediator Jesus Christ. 1. His [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] his eminence and highness in respect of the glory and majesty he is exalted to, far above whatever is highest among all the creatures. 2. His [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the power, by which he can, and does by degrees, and will more and more subdue his and his Churches enemies, and dash them in pieces like a potters vessel, and break them with a rod of Iron. 3. His [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], his kingly power, by which he exerciseth acts of government. These three are distinguished in an earthly king, the first two being of a larger extent than the third. The conclusion of that prayer which our Lord taught his disciples, does distinguish the same three in God. Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory. Now these being distinguished in the Mediator Jesus Christ, I conclude with these three distinct assertions (the truth whereof I hope I have made to appear.) 1. As Mediator, he is exalted and dignified above all creatures, and his glory is above all the earth. 2. As Mediator, he exerciseth acts of divine power and omnipotency over all creatures, in the behalf of, and for the good of his Church, and restraineth, or diverteth, or destroyeth all his Churches enemies. 3. As Mediator, he is King, Head, and Governor to none but his Church: neither was all government put in his hand, but the government of the Church only.

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