John Fairly on Magistracy V.

[Page 66]

CHAPTER V.

Enquired,—whether (as Mr. Goodlet teaches) the light of nature, and reason, exclusive of the light of scripture, be the standard-measure and rule of the magistrate’s office and duties?—And of the conduct and duty of civil society, in the erection of civil government and rulers?—Whether this ordinance and these duties may be called scriptural.—The dangerousness and unsoundness of Mr. Goodlet’s doctrine on these heads discovered.—His objections against the ordinances and duties of magistracy being called scriptural, largely answered and discuss’d.

---

Scripture light is a distinguishing blessing and privilege, Psalm cxlvii. 19, 20.—Unto this we are commanded in all things to take heed, 2 Pet. i. 19. as unto a light that shineth in a dark place; and as being given for our instruction in righteousness, “that we may be perfect and throughly furnished unto every good work,” 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. Without taking heed to this light, such as are favoured with the privilege, but neglect and cast it aside, cannot, in God’s account, be said to do well, or to cleanse their way, Psalm cxix. 9. Though yet, according to Mr. Goodlet’s system and sentiments, it would seem, men may do well, if they walk according to the light of their natural reason and consciences, tho’ they take not heed to their way according to the word of God. That this is his opinion and judgment has been already in part proven and evinced in the preceding chapter, and will still further and more plainly appear, upon our more particular consideration of the last of the two things which he evidently includes and intends, as the import and meaning of his doctrine anent the foundation of the “magistratical office and duties,” viz. “That the light of nature and reason, is a sufficiently clear and perfect,—and an universally complete rule, (without the word,) both to any people or civil society in their choice and erection of magistrates; and to magistrates themselves in the execution and discharge of their duty;” or, “That the light of

[Page 67]

nature and reason, exclusive of that of scripture, is the standard measure and rule, (as well as the foundation) of the magistrate’s office and duties—and of the conduct and duty of any civil community in their choice and erection of magistrates, or behaviour towards them.”—And thus, it would seem, according to his scheme, any further or better light for direction as to this particular, is quite needless and superfluous; or, what mankind may be, and do well enough without.—That this is his sentiment and meaning, may be evident from these passages in his book which I shall here set down, viz. page 12. “There is not one duty competent to magistracy, but what is founded in the law of nature.—That practice, law or sentence, that is not founded in, and flows not from the law of nature, belongs not to civil magistracy.” And page 13, “The word of God doth not add one single magistratical duty, as to matter and substance, to the magistrate’s office, more than what is incumbent upon him by the law of nature.” And it seems to be his opinion, that magistracy, in none of its particular forms, is commanded in scripture at all: “I might (says he) go through each form of government, and might say particularly, that monarchy or kingly government is not scriptural institution, for though God gave Israel directions how to choose a king, he gave them no call, or command to set up a king, &c.” In answer to all this, I reply,

First, That “altho’ the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence,” do in so far discover and manifest God, and his will to man respecting his duty, both natural, civil and religious, as leaves those without excuse who are deficient of what this revelation requires; yet the book of nature, from which these duties are legible, is become so dark and obscure through that blindness and stupidity which sin hath brought upon man, that God in his mercy and kindness hath thought fit to give a new and repeated discovery of all these in his word: For instance, the light of nature from his works, discovers and manifests that God is; that he is to be worshipped, honoured, loved, feared, believed, trusted in, and called upon; yet all these, the love of God, the fear of God, faith in God, trust in God, and prayer to God, all which

[Page 68]

are duties of what is called natural religion, are commanded and enjoined in scripture. And moreover, the duties of parents towards their children, and of children towards their parents; husbands towards their wives, and wives towards their husbands, &c. than which, one would think, no duties can be more natural, while yet, according to this doctrine, all this was needless and superfluous.

Secondly, Noah (the second common father of mankind) and his family,—or, the children of Israel, may be thought and allowed to have been endued with as much of the “light of nature and of right reason,” and the dictates thereof, as any other people naturally are. In which case, one would think, there was no need for divine instruction and direction from God with respect to this particular; yet we find God gave them both commands and direction anent civil government. He did not indeed command them to set up a king; there was no need of that,—Himself was their king: so that they were well provided this way: But yet he commanded government among them subordinate to his own, as all government must be, that is lawful or moral, Deut. xvi. 18. Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee;—and they shall judge the people with just judgment. See also, Exod. xviii. 21. and Deut. xvii. 14. where we have an account of the precepts and directions God gave them anent their choice of kings and rulers. And these precepts are so far from being only temporary, that they are the very dictates of the law of nature, most agreeable to right reason itself. But, according to this scheme, there was no need for these precepts and directions, seeing the duties of both people and magistrates are sufficiently visible and clear from the light of nature: And tho’ these precepts, instructions and directions be given in scripture, yet civil society, and civil rulers are, it seems, at liberty to use, or not to use them, as they please. But,

Thirdly, I must yet come closer upon combat with this terrible Achillean boast; these “great swelling words of vanity,” wherein our author, like another Goliah, as it were bids defiance to the armies of the living God. “The scripture (says he,) doth not add one single magistratical duty, as to matter and substance, to the magistrate’s office,

[Page 69]

office, more than what is incumbent upon him by the law of nature.”

Answer I. The scripture doth not add one single moral and religious duty, either towards God or towards man, more than what is incumbent upon the Christian, the believer, by the very law of nature; Ergo, the church of God hath no need of the light of scripture instruction and direction anent these. The light of nature and reason, together with the internal light of the Spirit, or what the apostle calls the “law of the Spirit,” or, “rule of the new creature” will be a sufficiently clear and safe guide to the Christian, without the outward light of the word. This would be Quakerism indeed. The scripture adds not one single Christian, moral or religious duty, more than what is included in that first and great commandment, Matth. xxii. 37. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And in the second which is like unto the first, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. All these ordinances which Mr. Goodlet allows only to be scriptural ordinances, such as the ministry and work thereof, the sacraments of the New Testament, church-government and discipline; these I say, are not, nor can be called new duties; but instituted and designed as subservient means and helps, whereby, through the energy and operation of the divine grace and blessing, men may be brought and enabled to know, obey, and submit to the will of God; and whereby believers may be edified, and built up in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, unto the service and glory of God, conform to the dictates and precepts of this “natural, eternal, moral law of God.” All these therefore the scripture represents to be in relation to the law of God, and church of God, as scaffolding is to the building, which is usually taken down when that is finished. That this is apostolical scriptural doctrine is plain from Eph. iv. 11, 12, 13. And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and some teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, &c.

Ans. II. I say, that it is false, “That the scripture doth not add one single magistratical duty, as to

[Page 70]

matter and substance, to the magistrate’s office, more than what is visible in the light of nature, and incumbent upon him by the law of nature.” For though it adds nothing to the office or power, abstractly considered, yet it adds such magistratical duties, as are not incumbent upon the magistrate by the law of nature, (in Mr. Goodlet’s sense of it, viz. the law of reason,) nor, are visible in the light of nature; particularly, it adds that they are to kiss the Son of God, and exalt his throne as kings; to serve him, not as men only, but as kings, Psalm ii. 11. To bring their honour and glory into the New Jerusalem. It is the Christian magistrate’s duty, which the light of nature can never dictate to him, to take order that the Christian sabbath be regarded and observed by his subjects: to punish the profanation and contempt of it, or any other of God’s ordinances. And for a number of other works and duties of this kind, that are incumbent on him by the word of God, I refer to our Confessions of Faith, where they are enumerated, Scottish Confession, art. 24. Westm. Confession, chap. xxiii. sect. 3.

These answers may serve to shew the vanity and dangerousness of Mr. Goodlet’s doctrine, which founds magistracy upon, and wholly regulating it, and all the duties belonging to it, by the light of nature and dictates of human reason, which he (falsely) calls the law of nature, exclusive of, and in direct opposition to the written law of God, and divine revelation. But to confirm himself, or rather his readers, in the belief of this vague opinion, he advances sundry objections or arguments against the contrary doctrine of the Reformed Presbytery, to wit, “That magistracy is the ordinance of God instituted in his word.” These I must take notice of, and answer in this place. And here he objects, page 62.

First, “That if civil government be a scriptural institution, then it must be a special gift of God to his church, and can belong to no other society of men.—It must be what men have no right to as men, but what they have conferred by the positive gift.”

Answer. This is a strange confused work indeed! For here, (1.) Mr. Goodlet misrepresents the Presbyteries words. These words, “scriptural institution,—and scriptural ordinance” are none of theirs, but his own: However, though they refuse the words in the sense

[Page 71]

that he understands them in, they will not, I suppose, refuse them in their own, viz. That magistracy is God’s ordinance instituted in his word. In this sense therefore, I shall admit them without further quarrel. (2.) He plays the sophist and cheat, by flying, as is frequently the way with him and his brethren, under the covert of an unwarrantable separation between the office, power or ordinance of civil magistracy, in an abstract sense, and the persons who occupy such office or power; as if the office, without the person, were the whole of this divine institution; whereas it includes both, or rather more specially and particularly points at, and respects the person, who is, or ought to be clothed with this office and power. So, says he, “If civil government were, &c.” Sir, the dispute is not so very much, or at least not here, about civil government abstractly and simply considered, as about civil governors.—Who ever said, or held that civil government was a special gift of God to his church. The office and power simply considered, is alike every where; but what I pray you, will the office or power do of itself, without the person or persons in whom it is to subsist, and who is to occupy it? what execution will a sword do, without a hand to use it? And moreover, what will, or would, an unqualified person do in such an office; just as much as the log of timber that Jupiter in the fable is said to have given to be king over the frogs, in a certain lake. I affirm therefore, that civil governors, such as are of God’s appointment, and of his approbation; such as are or can be a blessing to the church of God, are the “special gift of God to his church.” Such he has promised; such she looks for, prays for, and hopes for, as a singular gift and special favour.—Here I have with me the concurrent witnesses and testimony both of the Spirit of God in scripture, of all orthodox divines, and of every sound and faithful Christian.

And what, I pray, is the reason that this power, that this ordinance of civil government is, and hath been so much abused and perverted through the world, to such ends as were directly contrary to those for which it is appointed by God, but just the corruption, and wicked dispositions of the persons who occupy’d this sacred office;—so that the thrones of the kings of the earth, have look’d more like Satan’s seat, than God’s throne or government.

[Page 72]

Secondly, He objects, “If this ordinance hath its basis in scripture, it can be visible to none, but by the light of God’s word.”

Answ. Whether is it more visible, or better seen as to its author, nature, ends, &c. in the light of nature and reason, or in the light of God’s word? And moreover, I have already proven, that there are duties belonging to this office that are not at all visible in the light of nature. But according to this doctrine, neither prayer, praise, relieving the poor by charity, or alms-giving, religious fasting, oaths, vows, lots, or assembling for social worship would be scriptural duties and ordinances; because all these are “visible by the light of nature,” and have been practised by the Heathen who were ignorant of the true God, and of his will revealed in scripture. The absurdity of which cannot but be evident, even to such as are of the smallest discernment. But this very acute theologist seems to frame and affix a meaning to the word (scriptural) that’s unknown to any other author that ever I saw, and must I suppose, be peculiar to himself and his brethren. As for the conclusion that Mr. Goodlet pretends to infer from the supposition of magistracy being founded on the moral law in the scriptures, respecting government among Heathens, I have materially answered it above, in my reply to his former objection, and have neither time nor inclination now to reply more particularly to it; but may perhaps take notice of some of his quibblish sophistry on this point afterwards.

Thirdly, Another very noisy objection he brings against magistracy’s being the ordinance of God, instituted in the word, is in these words, page 20. “They discredit the law of nature and supernatural revelation, (says he) who say, that civil government or magistracy have their foundation only (or any way) in supernatural revelation.”

In answer to this high charge, I shall make these remarks;

1st, I know of none, that have treated the law of nature and divine revelation so discreditably and unworthily, under a pretence of friendship, as Mr. Goodlet and his brethren have done; first in imposing their spurious and inconsistent sense upon the law of nature, and then attempting to foist in their false and bastard law of nature, in

[Page 73]

the place both of natural and supernatural revelation; yea, to exalt it above them both. If this be not a discrediting both the law of nature and divine revelation, I know not what is, or may be called so.

2. It may be observed here, that Mr. Goodlet carries his opposition to the farthest extreme against the Reformed Presbytery: “They discredit the law of nature, and divine revelation, (says he) who say, that magistracy is only (or any way) founded on divine revelation.” There is a distinction generally allowed of, and in use among all sound divines with respect to scriptural doctrines, duties and ordinances, viz. That some of them are founded purely on revelation, and therefore can only be proven and established by its testimony against such as deny them. Others there are, the justness and truth of which is approven of, allowed and confirmed both by the dictates and voice of nature, i.e. of reason, and of revelation; and therefore may be said to have their foundation and warrant both in the law of nature and scripture. Of this sort are all the truths relating to the being, unity and perfections of God,—his relations,—as the Creator and Governor of the world, Preserver of men, &c. and all the duties of natural religion.—Now, why but Mr. Goodlet might have allowed civil government and magistracy to be one of these. This distinction, I think, he might have admitted of here, without any prejudice to his own argument, and with far less prejudice to the truth. But instead of this, his keen and furious zeal (against what, in his blind derision and disdain, he falsely calls the anti-government scheme) pushes him to extrude divine revelation, and thrust it out entirely from the smallest concern in this matter. Upon which I would seriously enquire of Mr. Goodlet, how he would prove against the Old Anabaptists that civil government is an ordinance of God, lawful or warrantable among Christians, or under the New Testament, if he did it not from scripture; or, how he would prove against Papists, that marriage is an ordinance of God, honourable in all, ecclesiastical persons or ministers, as well as others, unless he made use of the scripture for this purpose. It would be no sufficient proof to say, that nature or men’s natural inclinations taught and dictated such things, or carried them out towards them; or that they were agreeable to the light of nature among Heathens,

[Page 74]

unless they were also found warranted and authorised by scripture revelation, which is given to be both the foundation and rule of all moral and religious duty to the church of God.

To this we may here subjoin one objection more, which Mr. Goodlet throws in with a mighty boast against the Reformed Presbytery, page 14. “All Protestant divines and lawyers (says he) have ever maintained it as an indelible truth, that civil government and magistracy hath its foundation in the law of nature; and so far as I know, none, except Anabaptists, Erastians and those who call themselves the Reformed Presbytery, ever dreamed that the maintenance of such a doctrine was an exchange of scripture revelation for the law of nature, &c.”

Answer I. If it be not an exchange of scripture revelation, for the law of nature, (i.e. according to Mr. Goodlet, for the light of nature and dictates of reason) it looks as like it, as any thing I ever saw or heard of.

Ans. II. What divines or lawyers Mr. Goodlet has seen, I know not, nor does he inform us. But, I am sure, all the Protestant divines ever I saw, do plainly and evidently fetch the institution of magistracy and civil government from the word, from the written moral law of God in the scriptures. Mr. Rutherford indeed makes it a question, “whether government be warranted by the law of nature.” But none ever made it a question, whether civil government was warranted in scripture; its warrant there is too clearly obvious to every eye, to be made a question. Mr. Rutherford, and all other Protestant divines, do harmoniously acknowledge and reverence the scripture as the supreme rule, standard and foundation of all truth and duty; as a law obliging and judging both reason and conscience, and as the infallible touchstone, whereby all the dictates of conscience and reason too, are to be try’d, and to which they are required to be conformed. This divine law determines and declares, that if they speak not according to the word—it is because there is no light in them. And none, that ever I heard of, called Protestants, put the light of nature or reason, or any subjective and internal light, before, or in the place of the divine law or word of God, in any instance, except Seceders, who, in this particular, join hands with Deists,—with Quakers,—and other Enthusiasts. It must surely be a very unhallowed

[Page 75]

Secession, to secede from the acknowledgment of the scripture as the rule and foundation of all moral duty, and to substitute the natural principles of self love and self-preservation, in any particular, as the first and only foundation (e). It is contrary to both reason and scripture to think, that men are left to take any method that their natural inclinations or reason leads them unto, either for providing for themselves what they find necessary for them, or for preserving what they have provided, without regard to any supreme obliging or directing rule. Nay, it is the very office of reason, whether natural, or sanctified, to look and search out, from God’s revealed law and will what those means are, that are approven and warranted of him. Reason itself will dictate to men, that no other method or means will prove, or can turn out, to the creatures preservation, comfort and happiness, but such only as are instituted and approven of God; in regard that his favour and blessing, from whence only such benefit and happiness flows, is ty’d to his own institution; and therefore, so far as men depart from the one, into the way of their own imaginations, so far they must, and will be deprived of the other. Such will always be the dictates and sentiments of right reason; but when men become so perverse, as to think their own light and wisdom entirely sufficient for them, and to say with respect to God, or his law, as some have done, We are lords, we will come no more unto thee, Jer. ii. 31. It is an evidence, that their right reason, is become ill rebellion, and that a deceived heart hath turned them aside.

I have said above, that all sound Protestant divines, do evidently found the institution of civil government and magistracy in the moral law of God written and recorded in scripture. For the proof of which I might bring forward the united testimony of all Protestant systematic divines, both domestic and foreign, that ever have treated on this subject; who do all unanimously agree with the church of

_____

(e) Quæritur quænam sit prima regula morum? Resp. Prima regula morum non est φιλαυτία, i.e. Sui amor, seu conservatio, ut quidam volunt.—Quia hoc φιλαυτία debet esse ordinata secundum Dei voluntatem revelatam,—quod autem ordinatur secundum aliud non potest Dei regula prima. [Question: What is the first rule of morals?
Answer: The first rule of morals is not φιλαυτία, that is, self-love or self-preservation, as some maintain; because this φιλαυτία must itself be ordered according to the revealed will of God. But that which is ordered according to another cannot be the first rule.] D. Colvillii Ethices Christiana libro primo.

[Page 76]

of Scotland, (Confession, art. 24.) and with the synod of divines at Westminster, in asserting, “That magistracy is a divine ordinance, instituted for the manifestation of the glory of God, and for the singular profit and commodity of mankind. That it is lawful for Christians to accept, and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto; in managing whereof, they are especially to maintain piety, justice and peace.” This divine institution being ordained, “not for civil policy only, but for the maintenance of true religion, and suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, &c.” The proof of all which particulars, they bring from scripture—The particular texts they adduce for proofs are these, Rom. i. 2, 3, 4. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. Prov. viii. 15, 16. Psalm ii. 10, 11, 12. 1 Tim. ii. 2. Psalm lxxxii. 3, 4. 2 Sam. xxiii. 3, &c. If these divines did not view magistracy as the “ordinance of God, instituted and warranted in his word,” I desire to know what they mean, by bringing all their proof for the warranting of it from the word of God? Nay, if they had judged it an ordinance founded in nature only, exclusive of scripture, (according to Mr. Goodlet’s false hypothesis) had they esteemed it to be a thing, the lawfulness and warrantableness of which arose purely from its agreeableness to the common light of nature, and dictates of right reason, and not at all from its agreeableness to the will of God revealed in his word; they then certainly had, and behooved to have fetched their proofs from Plato and Aristotle; from Cicero and Seneca, rather than from the Bible. They would surely have found it chiefly and only needful, to have shewn its agreeableness to the sentiments of those Heathen sages, who were taught and guided purely and only by the light of nature and reason; and hereby fenced and guarded against its being turned into an Erastian office, by its being regulated by scripture light, and having scripture qualifications and duties assigned to it. But these venerable divines knew and taught other doctrine anent that ordinance, than such stuff as that. They knew that the Heathen were to be judged by one law, and we by another, and yet not another, Rom. ii. 12. For as many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned under the law, shall be judged by the law.

This might suffice to discover how much the sentiments

[Page 77]

of all orthodox Protestant divines concur with those of the Reformed Presbytery on this head, and in opposition to Mr. Goodlet’s sectarian doctrines. But as he makes a great deal of use of Mr. Rutherford, and would make the world believe that Mr. Rutherford and he think with one mind and speak with one mouth in this matter, I shall therefore, here set down Mr. Rutherford’s sentiments on this particular, in his own words, whereby it will appear how dissonant his doctrine is to that of Mr. Goodlet. Lex Rex, page 2, (sub fine) “That we defend ourselves from violence by violence, is a consequent of unbroken and sinless nature.—But that we defend ourselves by devolving our power over in the hands of one or more rulers, seemeth rather positively moral than natural:” And if moral, surely its morality must arise from its agreeableness to the moral law of God. Again, page 6, and 7. He speaks full to the purpose, “The kingly or royal office is from God by divine institution, and not by naked approbation. For first, we may well prove Aaron’s priesthood to be of divine institution, because God doth appoint the priest’s qualifications, from his family, bodily perfections, and his charge; and 2. We take the pastor to be by divine law, and God’s institution, because the Holy Ghost, 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2, 3, 4. describeth his qualifications; so may we say, that the royal power is by divine institution, because God mouldeth him, Deut. xvii. 15. Thou shalt in any wise, set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; One from among thy brethren. Rom. xiii. 2. There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God, as his own ordinance, to which we owe subjection for conscience, and not only for fear of punishment. But every power is such,” Rom. xiii.—8. Kings and magistrates are God’s,—and God’s deputies and lieutenants upon earth, Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6, 7. Exod. xxii. 8. Exod. iv. 16. and therefore, their office must be a lawful ordinance of God.—9. By their office they are feeders of the Lord’s people, Psalm lxxviii. 70, 71, 72. The shields of the earth, Psalm xlvii. 9. Nursing fathers of the church, Isa. xlix. 23. Captains over the Lord’s people, 1 Sam. ix. 16. 10. It is a great judgment of God, when a land wanteth the benefit of such ordinances of God, Isa. iii. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11. The

[Page 78]

exercise of their office is an act of the just Lord of heaven and earth, not only by permission, but according to God’s revealed will in his word.” Here I might observe by the way, that Mr. Goodlet may snarl at Mr. Rutherfoord, as he does at the Reformed Presbytery, for his comparing the magistrate’s office with the priest’s office, and with the evangelical pastor’s office, in respect of qualifications of each being with equal distinction and preciseness appointed in the word of God.

There is only one objection more, of these brought by Mr. Goodlet against the presbytery, which I shall take notice of in this place. Page 64, “In a word, says he, all institutions that are of divine revelation are appointed for spiritual ends.”—And, page 13, “If divine revelation was the foundation of magistratical duties, then these duties behooved to have a direct and immediate tendency to a spiritual and supernatural end; and this would be ascribing to magistracy what is only given by infinite wisdom to a gospel ministry, which is absurd; as the objects of civil society and government are temporal, earthly, and human; and the immediate end of them to regulate and conduct these in their natural spheres, to their natural ends, which are temporal and earthly; it would be an impeachment of infinite wisdom to say, that he hath opened up a spiritual and supernatural spring for common earthly ends and purposes.” Again, to the same purpose, page xii. “The civil law (and so, of consequence, civil government) intends nothing but the outward peace and quietness of human society, that men may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in the enjoyment of their privileges secular and spiritual.”—Here we have a heap of strange Sectarian stuff indeed! Doctrines directly antipodes to that of our Confessions of Faith, and of all our own reforming covenanting divines, and of all sound divines that ever wrote upon the subject; and contrary to the spirit, genius and design of the testimony of the covenanted church of Scotland, and of all her wrestlings for civil reformation.

In answer to which, I must again here observe, (1.) That the Reformed Presbytery, have never said, and I suppose were never so blockish as to think, that the magistratical office or duties were only and wholly “of divine revelation,” tho’ our author would persuade himself and the

[Page 79]

world that they are so. All that they have said is, that these are by, and from the divine command and will revealed. And so, (2.) Be it granted here and allowed, that civil magistracy and government and the duties belonging thereunto, do not conduce unto spiritual ends, nor promote the spiritual good and advantage of the church, in the same way, or by the use of the same kind of methods or means, that a gospel ministry, &c. does; yet it will be found a very odd, and dangerous extreme, a doctrine not according to godliness, to say, that the magistrate’s office and duties are not appointed for spiritual ends, nor at all design’d to conduce towards a spiritual and supernatural good.

But they have not “a direct immediate tendency to spiritual and supernatural ends.—

Ans. I know no external ordinance of any kind, that hath a natural, direct and immediate tendency to such ends, without the intervention of any other thing; neither a gospel ministry, nor any other ordinance, will or can have of themselves an immediate tendency to the “supernatural and spiritual good” of any, but by the blessing of God upon them, and accompanying them; unless Mr. Goodlet will have these ordinances to work like natural causes, naturally and necessarily producing such ends and effects; to suppose which, would be most absurd, and contrary to the nature and design of all the ordinances which God hath appointed.

If the magistrate’s power, the husband’s, the parent’s power were appointed for merely natural ends only, they would, I think, be poor, low-lif’d institutions indeed. I make no scruple or doubt to say, that all of these are appointed for, and are to be directed to supernatural ends. Marriage is an ordinance of God, somewhat similar to magistracy; and that it was appointed principally for a supernatural end, is testified by the prophet Malachi, chap. ii. 15. And did not he make one, and wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. This ordinance was appointed, not merely and only for the propagation of mankind; but for the maintenance and preservation of the church, the knowledge and profession of the true religion. Again, parental chastisement and correction of children, is a duty, one would think, most natural, which yet we are well assured is an ordinance of God, designed for

[Page 80]

spiritual and supernatural ends.” See Prov. xiii. 24. and xxii. 15. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. And Prov. xxix. 15. The rod and reproof give wisdom. Nay, I am in no difficulty both to assert and prove, that the preservation of mankind,—and all the means divinely allowed and appointed for this purpose,—the exercise of the divine patience towards a guilty world,—God’s providential government of the world,—and the whole train and series of his dispensations towards it, are all (in subordination to his own glory) either more remotely, or more directly, for the sake, i.e. for the good of his church (which is also called his glory, Zech. ii. 8.) and elect (either actually existing, or afterwards to exist) therein. They are all of them intended to conduce, either towards the instruction, correction, preservation, deliverance, or one way or other, to the good and happiness of the church of God. Or else as subservient towards bringing into actual being, filling up, and gathering in of the number of his elect, the number of which is not circumscribed or confined to one age, or one nation of the world; but is interspersed and intermingled, and to be called from out of all ages, nation, kindreds and tongues. Upon the fulfilment and accomplishment of which, we are assured, that time and all the ordinances and things of time, shall cease and be no longer, Rev. x. 6, 7. In order to ascertain and prove the truth of this, I shall only desire the reader to turn his eye to these few texts of scripture, all very remarkable to the purpose, Isa. lxiv. per totum, especially verses 4. and 5. Isa. xliii. 14. Thus saith the Lord, your Redeemer, the holy One of Israel, For your sakes I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships. Zeph. iii. 6, 7. Matth. xxiv. 22. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect’s sake, these days shall be shortened, 2 Cor. iv. 15. And particularly, with reference to the ordinance of civil government and magistracy to the above scripture proofs, I may add the testimony of two eminently judicious divines, bearing witness to it. The first is Mr. Shields, Hind let Loose, page 273. “The ends of magistracy, which are the greatest, the glory of God, and the good of mankind; and in the effect of it, the maintenance of truth, righteousness, religion, liberty, peace,

[Page 81]

safety, and all choice eternal blessings.” Page 269. “The glory of God (which is the highest supernatural end) is much concerned in our owning and keeping pure and entire, according to his will and word, both these ordinances, (viz. the ministry and the magistracy.”)

Another witness I bring to this truth is Mr. Rutherfoord, who introduces and mentions it not occasionally, or in transitu [in passing]; but largely insists, to the extent of no less than eight quarto pages, in shewing that the intrinsical end of magistracy is a supernatural good. The half of what he says and advances for the proof of this, would be too much for me to insert here. But I shall, however, cite so much from him, as shall abundantly evince, how far Mr. Goodlet and his brethren are at odds with Mr. Rutherfoord on this head. Due right, page (mihi) 393. 394. “The end of the kingly power is not only external peace; but also godliness, 1 Tim. ii. 2. And in the intrinsical end of magistracy; as magistracy is not only natural happiness and a quiet life, but also godliness, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty; ergo, in all that may conduce to life eternal. He is a king by office, but in a coactive and regal way.

2. The ruler is, Rom. xiii. 14. The minister of God to thee for good: Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the ruler. Then look how far good and well-doing, which is praise-worthy, extendeth; as far doth the intrinsical end of magistracy reach. But this good and well-doing which the magistrate procureth, is not only a natural happiness, and the quiet life of civil society; but also, the good and well-doing of Christians as Christian, viz. public praying, praising, preaching, hearing of the word, religious administration and receiving of sacraments; all which the king as king is to procure; for whatever good external, pastors as pastors do procure, that same also, but in a civil and coactive way, is the king to procure; and therefore, his end as king, is godliness and eternal life. But he is busied about this end in a far other and more carnal way than the pastor; the weapons of whose warfare are not carnal.

[Page 82]

3. That the king’s end intrinsical as king, is more than external and natural peace, is clear, because ill doing, against which he is as the minister of God, is to execute vengeance and wrath, Rom. xiii. 3, 4. is not only that which is contrary to the external quietness of the commonwealth, and the natural happiness of civil society; but also that which is contrary to the happiness supernatural of the church, as believers in the way to life eternal; for he is to take vengeance upon blasphemy, idolatry, profess’d unbelief, neglect of religious administration of the seals; which are ills not formally contrary to external quietness, but which are directly scandals and moral ills. Hindering men as members of the church in their journey to life eternal, for tho’ men should never fail or sin against the external quietness of the natural happiness of the members of a commonwealth, yet the magistrate as the magistrate is to execute vengeance upon all external ill-doing, as blasphemy, adoring of idols.

4. The magistrate as the magistrate, in the zeal of God, is to set himself against sin as dishonourable to God and his glory, seeing the judgment that he executeth is not man’s, but the Lord’s, 2 Chron. xix. 6. And he is a little god, in the room of God; yea, God sitteth judging in and thro’ him, Psalm lxxxii. 1. And therefore, his end is not only to punish sins as they trouble the external peace of the commonwealth, but all the external sins, that may wound the honour of God, and against which the magistrate, as he is such, is to be armed and clothed with zeal.

5. Those who with Spalato, teach that life eternal is not the end of the magistrate, as a magistrate, but only the extrinsical end of the magistrate, or the end of the person who is the magistrate, must foully err, so it is not (in their meaning) the end of the office or kingly art, to maintain religion and piety; but this is the end of the person clothed with the office; and so they deny that God hath destined the kingly office, to help men as Christians to heaven, and to promote Christ’s kingdom mediatory:—And they must be forced to say, God hath ordained magistracy to help men as men, or as they have a life common to them with the beasts, and not to help them as Christian men, to fly from the wrath

[Page 83]

to come, and obtain life eternal: which certainly is against the honour of magistracy,—which of its own nature is destined for the promoting of religion, else the magistrate, as the magistrate, is not a nurse-father in the church, nor to bring his glory to the New Jerusalem, nor to kiss the Son, nor to exalt the throne of Jesus Christ, contrary to the word of God, Isa. xlix. 23. Rev. xxi. 6. Psal. ii. 10. 11. 12, &c.

Some say, the magistrate’s power and the ecclesiastic power differ in the objects. The magistrate’s power is, (say they) things earthly and external; the power of the church is things spiritual, and the inner man.

I answer, These two powers differ in the objects, no question; I mean in the formal objects, not in the material; for the magistrate is a nurse-father, and keeper and avenger of both tables of the law, and hath a coactive power about hearing the word, administration of the sacrament, idolatry, blasphemy, and the right serving of God in Jesus Christ; and these things are not res terranæ, earthly things, or things of this life, but spiritual things: yea, the affairs of Jehovah, and the King’s matters, 2 Chron. xix. 11. Saith Amesius, are not so different, non ita disparata sunt, as that the care and knowledge of the things of God belongeth not to the king. Sed hæc distinguuntur ut in modo procurandi, rex politice suas partes agat, sacerdos ecclesiastice suas. [But these are distinguished in this way: in the manner of procuring or promoting it, the king performs his part politically, and the priest performs his ecclesiastically.] The objects of the magistrate’s power, and of the church’s power, may be materially, and are, one and the same; but the king worketh in a coactive and kingly way, and the church in an ecclesiastic and spiritual way:—For, do not both the king as king, and the church as the church command and forbid one and the same thing: Ergo, Doth not the king command the right worship of God, and forbid idolatry and the blaspheming of God? and doth not church in her synodical canons command and forbid these same things? yea, certainly.—But the king doth command and forbid, by a kingly and coactive power, under the pain of bodily punishment, as incarceration, exile, proscription, or death, according to the quality of the fact.—And the church commandeth also the right worship of God, and forbiddeth blasphemy, &c. but by

[Page 84]

a spiritual and ecclesiastic power; and under the pain of spiritual and ecclesiastic censures, as open rebuke, suspension and excommunication. And they differ not so much in their ends, as some teach, so as the end of church power should be the communion of saints and the edifying of the body of the church, which I grant is true; and the end of the ruler should be only preservation of peace, and the external tranquility of the commonwealth.—Yea, I say, from the word of God, that external peace is too narrow an end, and it doth belong to the second table, the king’s end as nurse-father, and his alike care is to preserve the first table; and as a nurse-father, to see that the children’s milk be good and wholesome,—tho’ the milk come not from his own breast; and so his power hath a kingly relation to all the word of God, and not to external peace and natural happiness only. And the king as king, his end is edification and spiritual good of souls also, but always by a kingly power and in a coactive way, by the sword.—Whereas, the church in their care of edifying souls, do use no such carnal weapons in their warfare, 2 Cor. x. 4. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds, &c.”

The above expresses Mr. Rutherfoord’s sentiments on this point. But how strangely opposite, how directly contrary Mr. Rutherfoord’s judgment is to Mr. Goodlet’s system of wild Sectarian notions, about the objects and extent of the magistrate’s power, as they are represented in the quotation from his book formerly noted down, may be easily obvious to every reader. That I may a little unfold the mystery of ungodliness and dishonesty, that this anti-scriptural scheme of his is pregnant with, and most fertile of; let me just state a comparison in a particular or two between Mr. Rutherfoord and Mr. Goodlet. Mr. Rutherfoord affirms and proves, that the “intrinsick end of the magistrate, and of the duties belonging to the discharge of his office is a supernatural good.” That he is the minister of God to execute vengeance and wrath, “not only against such ill-doing as is contrary to the external peace of the commonwealth and natural happiness of civil society; but also against that which is contrary to the supernatural happiness of the church, as believers in their way to life eternal,—by punishing blasphemy,

[Page 85]

profaneness, idolatry, and avowed infidelity, &c.” He reckons it “an abominable error to deny, that God hath destined the kingly or magistratical office unto the maintenance of religion, godliness and truth, to the promotion of Christ’s mediatory kingdom, and exaltation of his throne; and to be helpful to men as Christians in their way to heaven.”—In contradiction to these who held that the end of the civil ruler was only the preservation of peace, and the external tranquility of the commonwealth, “I say (says he) from the word of God, that external peace is too narrow an end; It belongs, i.e. belongs only to the second table. But the king’s end as nurse-father, and his alike or equal care is to preserve the first table also; he is keeper and avenger of both tables of the law.” He affirms and proves further, “that the objects of the magistratical power, care and concern, are not simply and only res terrenæ, earthly things,—or things of this life;—but that he hath a power circa sacra, a power about the preaching and hearing of the word, administration of the sacraments, idolatry, blasphemy, and the right serving of God in Jesus Christ. All which are not terrene earthly things, but spiritual things.” In all which, he is so far from being singular or alone, that he hath herein the universal and harmonious concurrence, suffrage and consent of the whole cloud of orthodox Christian divines, both ancient and modern, domestic and foreign. A number of which I could adduce, speaking the same language with Mr. Rutherfoord on this particular, were it necessary. It may suffice, that I note down some of the words of the church of Scotland on this head, (Scots Confession, chap. xxiv.) “Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm, that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion appertain, so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for the maintenance of the true religion, and suppression of idolatry and superstition, whatsoever, &c.” To the same purpose speaks the assembly of divines in the Westminster Confession, chap. xxiii. sect. 3. “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet, he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that the truth of God be

[Page 86]

kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline be prevented or reformed, all the ordinances of God directly settled and observed, &c.”

Now, if on the other hand, we take a view of Mr. Goodlet’s doctrine on this point, we shall find it a pure contrast of the above, directly opposite to it. If you ask him, for what ends magistracy, which is an ordinance of God, was appointed by him, he tells you, page 13. That the ends for which this ordinance is appointed are just and only “common, temporal, earthly ends and purposes.” With him, it is most absurd to say, that the intrinsical end of the magistrate’s power and government is a supernatural good. If you ask him what are the objects of civil government, or of the magistrate’s power, care and inspection; he tells you, they are (wholly) “temporal, earthly, and human;” and that the immediate end of it is to “regulate and conduct these (temporal, earthly and human objects) in their natural spheres, to their natural ends, which are temporal and earthly.” If you put the question, whether the magistrate is to do any thing about religion at all, or what it is? He will tell you, that all his concern about it, amounts to no more than that he give general toleration to all different religions and opinions true and false; so that under him men may live a quiet and peaceable life in the possession of their secular, and what they imagine to be their spiritual or moral rights and privileges. For thus he speaks, page 22. of his book, “That civil laws, and government intend nothing but the outward peace and quietness of human society, that men may lead a quiet and peaceable life in the enjoyment of their privileges, secular and spiritual;” so that according to this vague doctrine, the Arian and the Socinian will have their spiritual privileges, or “what they take to be such,” (as our author speaks in the next page) which they have a right to be protected in; and the Deist, will esteem his privilege of free-thinking as reasonable and morally just as any other: in short, according to him, the magistrate has nothing to do with the care of religion, truth and godliness, i.e. no manner of concern about the church or ordinances of God in the way that our Confessions of Faith, and all Protestant divines have hitherto determined (as will better appear afterwards.)—This, with

[Page 87]

him and his brethren is Erastianism. In their system, the magistrate is allowed, and only allowed, to be the keeper and avenger of the second table of the law of God, which respects and is the rule of justice and righteousness towards men; but for the first table of the law, which respects religion, and the worship and ordinances of God, it is none of his concern. None therefore need be surprised to find the doctrine of the Reformed Presbytery on this head called “vile Erastian stuff.”

This is, so far as I can conjecture, a true summary of Mr. Goodlet’s political principles de jure magistratus [concerning lawful magistracy]. And herein, he perfectly coincides and agrees with the doctrine current and authentic in the church of Rome, which divests the civil magistrate of all power or concern about sacred or religious things or persons, and gives it wholly to the pope.* He particularly and exactly concurs with that famous hypocrite and apostate, the popish archbishop of Spalato†, against whom Mr. Rutherfoord professedly

_____

*Hall’s Exposition of the lxxxii Psalm, page 16. “Bellarmine sticks not to call kings and princes mundanos et profanos homines, profane men, preferring the pope and his shavelings before them. The magistrate must not suppress errors, call synods, or intermeddle with religion.” Vide de Bellarm. de exemptione cler. cap. 2. Rutherfoord’s Due Right, page (mihi) 395. “Bellarmine maketh the king a governor of men, according to their bodies, and his old father the Antichrist a governour of men according to their souls.” Bellarm. de Pontifice Rom. lib. I. chap. vii. How much of our author’s doctrine and that of his brethren about the objects and ends of magistracy, is of a piece with the above, which is the current and authentic doctrine of the church of Rome, will easily appear to every judicious reader.

† Marcus Antonius de Dominis, an Italian cardinal, and arch-bishop of Spalato came over into England 1616.—Conscience in shew, and covetousness in deed, caused his coming over. He made great professions of hatred to Romish idolatry. And that for Christ’s sake, and the sake of truth, he had left his honours, dignities, and friends in Italy; was honourably entertain’d and provided for, by King James and the English bishops. But afterwards apostatized, and went back to the church of

[Page 88]

disputes, as his principal antagonist in the quotation above cited, as may be seen. Here we come to understand the grand mysterious reason of Mr. Goodlet’s carnal contendings for the law of nature, to the utter exclusion of the written law of God; and of his making the light of nature and reason the sole basis, measure and rule of the magistratical office and duties. Why? Because this law of nature requires no subjection to Christ the Son of God, is no way concerned anent true religion; very little religion will serve to answer its demands, if there be any at all. Natural religion, or Deism, is most unexceptionably correspondent to its dictates. And with respect to all forms or modes of religion, to it, they are arbitrary and indifferent. See Acts xviii. 14, 15, 17. Judaism, Popery, Prelacy, Presbytery are alike; and according to this law of the people’s inclinations and carnal reason, are all alike to be allowed, and tolerated as a sort of sufferable evils. But I shall now sum up the argument of the two last preceding chapters in a few words, and so conclude my animadversions on our author’s doctrine about the law of nature, &c.

The competition here then between the light of nature and the light of scripture, is like that between the greater and lesser light, between the light of the sun, and that of the moon; nay, as it were between the light of a candle or glimmering taper, and that of the sun shining in his strength: And here all the advantages tending to give the preference, stand fair on the side of divine revelation. Let us take notice of a few of them.—Does nature teach, and is every man bound and directed by the law of nature, to take all habile methods for preserving his own life, liberty and property? So is he expressly bound and directed by the law of the ten commandments, and through the whole of divine revelation. Is every man bound by the law of nature, not only to preserve his own life, liberty, and property, but also that of others? Every man is bound to the same by

_____

[continued from page 87] Rome; whereupon, some compared him to the house swept and garnished into which the devil returned with seven spirits more wicked than himself.—These were, avarice, ambition, hypocrisy and apostacy,—perjury, ingratitude and calumny. Here he published his books De Republica Ecclesiastica. Fuller’s Church History.

[Page 89]

the written law of God in divine revelation. Does the principle of self-preservation in men, that love and concern they have for their own safety, lead men to a constituting and erecting civil government among them, for the defence of themselves and their property; and does the light of natural reason discover that this is a method lawful and approved of God, as viewing him to be the Preserver of men? The word of divine revelation discovers this much more clearly to the eye of reason, than the works of nature and providence can. It approves of this method, declaring the magistratical office and power to be the ordinance of God. Is it the voice of the laws of nature, and sentiment of right reason, that wisdom, justice, and approven fidelity, can only intitle a person to the honour of standing a candidate for such an important trust as that of government? The very same is the determination of the law and voice of God in divine revelation. Does the light of nature and reason read and point out from the book of nature some of the duties belonging to and incumbent on civil rulers; the written law of God in divine revelation clearly, distinctly and fully informs of, and directs to the whole of them; bringing the knowledge of some that cannot be discerned or discovered by the light of natural reason.

How unreasonable, absurd, and ungrateful must it then be, for any who are favoured with the light of divine revelation, to cast it aside, and to betake themselves to the dark and diminutive light of reason now corrupted, in place thereof, for direction in this, or any particular moral duty. “Exorta luce scripturæ, frustra, hac posita ad tenebras rationis potius deflectimus quam ad illam, ut de eo quod justum est instruamur. [When the light of Scripture has arisen, we turn in vain—once this has been set forth—to the darkness of reason rather than to Scripture itself, that we may be instructed concerning what is just.]” †—The light of a candle may serve for some purposes, during the continuance of the darkness of the night; or in such places where the light of day cannot reach; but for any person, out of love to candle light, to shut and keep his windows fast, in order to prevent the access of the light of day, or of the sun when arisen and shining in brightness, would be an instance of very odd and foolish conduct.

What has been said (as above) may sufficiently serve to

_____

† Apollonius de Lege Dei.

[Page 90]

detect the unreasonableness and absurdity (and I might add, ungodliness) of our author’s notions of the law of nature, and of his vile substitution of human knowledge and reason in the place of the law of God. And, as I am sensible, I have been by far too tedious on this subject, and what belong’d unto it, I shall therefore endeavour to be more concise in what remains. Using all the brevity the subject will possibly admit, or that may be consistent with the design of these answers. That which now first presents itself to our consideration, is our author’s random doctrine and pleadings in behalf of the Heathen magistrate. (To what intent he drags him into the field I know not) but this I shall leave to make up a part of the subject of the next chapter.