ii. 1, 2, on which is weakly built such a mighty building, I shall

propose and resolve these four queries.

CHAP. LXXXVII.

[Sidenote: 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, discussed.]

First, what is meant by godliness and honesty in this place?

Secondly, what may the scope of the Holy Spirit of God be in this place?

Thirdly, whether the civil magistrate was then _custos utriusque tabulæ_, keeper of both tables? &c.

Fourthly, whether a church, or congregation of Christians, may not live in godliness and honesty, although the civil magistrate be of another conscience and worship, and the whole state and country with him?

To the first, what is here meant by godliness and honesty?

_Answ._ I find not that the Spirit of God here intendeth the first and second table.

[Sidenote: The word _honesty_, in this place of Timothy, cannot signify here the honesty or righteousness of the second table.]

For, however the word εὐσεβεία signify godliness, or the worship of God, yet the second word, σεμνότης, I find not that it signifies such an honesty as compriseth the duties of the second table, but such an honesty as signifies solemnity, gravity; and so it is turned by the translator, Tit. ii. 7, ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀδιαφθορίαν, σεμνότητα, that is, in _doctrine_ [showing] _incorruptness, gravity_: which doctrine cannot there be taken for the doctrine of the civil state, or second table, but the gravity, majesty, and solemnity of the spiritual doctrine of Christianity. So that, according to the translators’ own rendering of that word in Titus, this place of Timothy should be thus rendered, _in all godliness_, or worshipping of God, _and gravity_; that is, a solemn or grave profession of the worship of God. And yet this mistaken and misinterpreted scripture, is that great castle and stronghold which so many fly unto concerning the magistrates’ charge over the two tables.

Secondly, what is the scope of the Spirit of God in this place?

[Sidenote: The scope of God’s Spirit in this place of Timothy.]

I answer, first, negatively; the scope is not to speak of the duties of the first and second table.

Nor, secondly, is the scope to charge the magistrate with forcing the people, who have chosen him, to godliness, or God’s worship, according to his conscience—the magistrate keeping the peace of external godliness, and the church of internal, as is affirmed; but,

Secondly, positively; I say the Spirit of God by Paul in this place provokes Timothy and the church at Ephesus, and so consequently all the ministers of Christ’s churches, and Christians, to pray for two things:—

[Sidenote: God’s people must pray for and endeavour the peace of the state they live in: although pagan or popish.]

First, for the peaceable and quiet state of the countries and places of their abode; that is implied in their praying, as Paul directs them, for a quiet and peaceable condition, and suits sweetly with the command of the Lord to his people, even in Babel, Jer. xxix. 7, pray for the peace of the city, and seek the good of it; _for in the peace thereof_ it shall go well with you. Which rule will hold in any pagan or popish city, and therefore consequently are God’s people to pray against wars, famines, pestilences, and especially to be far from kindling coals of war, and endeavour the bringing in and advancing their conscience by the sword.

[Sidenote: Forcing of men to godliness or God’s worship, the greatest cause of breach of civil peace.]

Secondly, they are here commanded to pray for the salvation of all men; that all men, and especially kings and magistrates, might be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth; implying that the grave—or solemn and shining—profession of godliness, or God’s worship, according to Christ Jesus, is a blessed means to cause all sorts of men to be affected with the Christian profession, and to come to the same knowledge of that one God and one Mediator, Christ Jesus. All which tends directly against what it is brought for, to wit, the magistrates’ forcing all men to godliness, or the worshipping of God. Which in truth causeth the greatest breach of peace, and the greatest distractions in the world, and the setting up that for godliness or worship which is no more than Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, a state-worship, and in some places the worship of the beast and his image, Dan. iii., Rev. xiii.

CHAP. LXXXVIII.

Thirdly, I query, whether the civil magistrate, which was then the Roman emperor, was keeper or guardian of both tables, as is affirmed?

[Sidenote: The Roman Cæsars described.]

Scripture and all history tell us, that those Cæsars were not only ignorant, without God, without Christ, &c.; but professed worshippers, or maintainers, of the Roman gods or devils; as also notorious for all sorts of wickedness; and, lastly, cruel and bloody lions and tigers toward the Christians for many hundred years.

[Sidenote: Not appointed by Christ Jesus keepers and guardians of his church.]

Hence, I argue from the wisdom, love, and faithfulness of the Lord Jesus in his house, it was impossible that he should appoint such ignorant, such idolatrous, such wicked, and such cruel persons to be his chief officers and deputy lieutenants under himself to keep the worship of God, to guard his church, his wife. No wise and loving father was ever known to put his child, no not his beasts, dogs, or swine, but unto fitting keepers.

Men judge it matter of high complaint, that the records of parliament, the king’s children, the Tower of London, the great seal, should be committed to unworthy keepers! And can it be, without high blasphemy, conceived that the Lord Jesus should commit his sheep, his children, yea, his spouse, his thousand shields and bucklers in the tower of his church, and lastly, his great and glorious broad seals of baptism and his supper, to be preserved pure in their administrations—I say, that the Lord Jesus, who is wisdom and faithfulness itself, should deliver these to such keepers?

_Peace._ Some will say, it is one thing what persons are in fact and practice; another what they ought to be by right and office.

_Truth._ In such cases as I have mentioned, no man doth in the common eye of reason deliver such matters of charge and trust to such as declare themselves and sins (like Sodom) at the very time of this great charge and trust to be committed to them.

_Peace._ It will further be said, that many of the kings of Judah, who had the charge of establishing, reforming—and so, consequently, of keeping the first table—the church, God’s worship, &c., were notoriously wicked, idolatrous, &c.

_Truth._ I must then say, the case is not alike; for when the Lord appointed the government of Israel after the rejection of Saul, to establish a covenant of succession in the type unto Christ, let it be minded what pattern and precedent it pleased the Lord to set for the after kings of Israel and Judah, in David, the man after his own heart.

[Sidenote: It pleased not the Lord Jesus, in the first institution of his church, to furnish himself with any such civil governors, as unto whom he might commit the care of his worship.]

But now the Lord Jesus being come himself, and having fulfilled the former types, and dissolved the national state of the church, and established a more spiritual way of worship all the world over, and appointed a spiritual government and governors, it is well known what the Roman Cæsars were, under whom both Christ Jesus himself, and his servants after him, lived and suffered; so that if the Lord Jesus had appointed any such deputies—as we find not a tittle to that purpose, nor have a shadow of true reason so to think—he must, I say, in the very first institution, have pitched upon such persons for these _custodes utriusque tabulæ_, keepers of both tables, as no man wise, or faithful, or loving, would have chosen in any of the former instances, or cases of a more inferior nature.

Beside, to that great pretence of Israel, I have largely spoken to.

Secondly. I ask, how could the Roman Cæsars, or any civil magistrates, be _custodes_, keepers of the church and worship of God, when, as the authors of these positions acknowledge, that their civil power extends but to bodies and goods?

And for spiritual power they say they have none, _ad bonum temporale_ (to a temporal good), which is their proper end; and then, having neither civil nor spiritual power from the Lord Jesus to this purpose, how come they to be such keepers as is pretended?

[Sidenote: The true keepers which Christ Jesus appointed of his ordinances and worship.]

Thirdly. If the Roman emperors were keepers, what keepers were the apostles, unto whom the Lord Jesus gave the care and charge of the churches, and by whom the Lord Jesus charged Timothy, 1 Tim. vi. 14, to keep those commands of the Lord Jesus without spot until his coming?

These keepers were called the foundation of the church, Eph. ii. 20, and made up the crown of twelve stars about the head of the woman, Rev. xii. 1; whose names were also written in the twelve foundations of [the] New Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 14.

Yea, what keepers then are the ordinary officers of the church, appointed to be the shepherds or keepers of the flock of Christ; appointed to be the porters or doorkeepers, and to watch in the absence of Christ? Mark xiii. 34; Acts xx. [28-31.]

Yea, what charge hath the whole church itself, which is _the pillar and ground of the truth_, 1 Tim. i. 15, in the midst of which Christ is present with his power, 1 Cor. v. 4, to keep out or cast out the impenitent and obstinate, even kings and emperors themselves, from their spiritual society? 1 Cor. v.; James iii. 1; Gal. iii. 28.

[Sidenote: The kings of the Assyrians, &c., not charged with God’s worship as the kings of Judah, in that national and typical church.]

Fourthly. I ask, whether in the time of the kings of Israel and Judah—whom I confess in the typical and national state to be charged with both tables—I ask, whether the kings of the Assyrians, the kings of the Ammonites, Moabites, Philistines, were also constituted and ordained keepers of the worship of God as the kings of Judah were, for they were also lawful magistrates in their dominions? or, whether the Roman emperors were _custodes_, or keepers, more than they? or more than the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, under whose civil government God’s people lived, and in his own land and city? Jer. xxix.

CHAP. LXXXIX.

[Sidenote: Constantine, Theodosius, &c., misinformed.]

_Peace._ You remember, dear Truth, that Constantine, Theodosius, and others, were made to believe that they were the antitypes of the kings of Judah, the church of God; and Henry VIII. was told that that title, _Defensor fidei_, defender of the faith, though sent him by the pope for writing against Luther, was his own diadem, due unto him from Heaven. So likewise since, the kings and queens of England have been instructed.

_Truth._ But it was not so from the beginning, as that very difference between the national state of the church of God then, and other kings and magistrates of the world, not so charged, doth clearly evince, and leadeth us to the spiritual king of the church, Christ Jesus, the king of Israel, and his spiritual government and governors therein.

[Sidenote: Masters of families under the gospel, not charged to force all under him from their own consciences to his.]

Fifthly. I ask, whether had the Roman Cæsars more charge to see all their subjects observe and submit to the worship of God in their dominion of the world, than a master, father, or husband now, under the gospel, in his family?

Families are the foundations of government; for what is a commonweal but a commonweal of families, agreeing to live together for common good?

Now in families, suppose a believing Christian husband hath an unbelieving, anti-christian wife, what other charge in this respect is given to a husband, 1 Cor. vii. [12-15], but to dwell with her as a husband, if she be pleased to dwell with him? but, to be so far from forcing her from her conscience unto his, as that if for his conscience’ sake she would depart, he was not to force her to tarry with him, 1 Cor.