f my answer, p. 42,
that he "must either prove from Scripture, that Christ, as Mediator, hath
given such a commission of vicegerentship and deputyship to the Christian
magistrate, or otherwise acknowledge that he hath given a most dangerous
wound to magistracy, and made it an empty title, claiming that power which
it hath no warrant to assume." I added: "As the Mediator hath not anywhere
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
xii. 14; 'And his kingdom is not of this world,' John xviii. 36." Now, but
what reply hath he made to all this? Page 19, he saith, Granting it all to
be true and sound, yet it infringeth not what he said. "The commissioner
(saith he) saith magistracy is not derived from Christ." I say,
"Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom." But by
his good leave and favour, he said a great deal more than this, for he
spake of Christ's being head of all civil governments, and his placing
these in his church as he is Mediator. Yea, that fourth rule delivered by
him in his sermon, did hold forth these assertions: 1. That God gave all
government, even civil, to Christ, and to him as Mediator; 2. That Christ,
as Mediator, hath power and authority to place, and substitute under and
for him, the Christian magistrate; 3. That Christ hath placed and
instituted civil governments in his church, to be under and for him, as he
is Mediator; 4. That the Christian magistrate doth, and all magistrates
should, manage their office under and for Christ (that is, as his
vicegerents), he being, as Mediator, head of all civil government. Now
instead of defending his doctrine from my just exceptions made against it,
he resileth, and having brought the magistrate in a snare, leaves him
there. He endeavours to vindicate no more but this, That magistracy is
given to Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom. But if he had said so at
first, I had said with him, and not against him, in that point; and if he
will yet hold at that, why doth he, p. 19, refer my assertion to further
discussion?

Secondly, He hath abused the Parliament in holding forth that rule to them
in his sermon, "Establish as few things _jure divino_ as can well be." And
yet now he is made, by strength of argument, to acknowledge, p. 5, that
this is a good rule, "Establish as many things _jure divino_ as can well
be."

Thirdly, I having stated the