Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	write_a	write_v	year_n	63	3	3.9254	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92138	The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.	Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1646 (1646)	Wing R2377; Thomason E326_1; ESTC R200646	722,457	814

Papists as Vasquez Becanus and others say that neither the Pope nor the Church can adde or devise a new Article of Faith Yet doth Horantius Loco Catholice l. 2. c. 11. fol. 129. teach That Christ hath not taught us all fully in the New Testament but that the holy spirit shall to the end of the world teach other new things as occasion shall require And this he bringeth as an Argument to prove that there must be unwritten Traditions not contained in Scripture even as the Formalists contend for unwritten Positives of Church-Policie 3. Morals of the Law of nature and the Morall Law do more respect occasions of Providence customes Laws and the manners of people they doing so nearly concerne our Morall practise then any Ceremonies of Moses his Law which did shadow out Christ to us and therefore this reason shall prove the just contrary of that for which its alledged for the Morall Law should be rather alterable at the Churches lust then Ceremonials for there be far more occurrences of Providence in regard of which the Laws Morall touching what is Sabbath breaking whether is leading an Ox to the water on the Sabbath a breach of the Sabbath the Jews held the affirmative Christ the negative touching obedience to Superiors Homicide Polygamie Incest Fornication Oppression Lying Equivocating Then there can be occasions to change the Law of sacrificing which clearly did adumbrat Christ who was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world yea all significant Symbolicall Ceremonies have their spirituall signification independent from all occasions of Providence and depending on the meer will of the Instituter Surplice or white linnen signifieth the Priests holinesse without any regard to time place or nationall customes for Christ might have made an immutable Law touching the Symbolicall and Religious signification and use of Saints-dayes white linnen Crossing and all the rest of humane Ceremonies which should stand to Christs second coming notwithstanding of any occurrences of Providence no lesse then he made an immutable Law touching the Sacramentall obsignation of water in Baptisme and of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper if it had not been his will never to burden his Churches with such dumb and tooth-lesse mysteries as humane positives 4. The assumption is false for divers Ceremoniall Laws now altered were made without any regard to occasions of Providence and many Doctrinals that are unalterable were made with speciall regard to such occurrences 5. If positives of Policy be alterable because the occasions of such are alterable by God it shall follow that God who hath all revolutions of Providence in his hand must change these Positives and not the Authority of the Church and thus Doctrinals are alterable by God not by men which is now our question for Christ hath given a Commandment Take ye Eat ye Drink ye all of this Yet hath he not tyed us in the time of persecution to conveen in publick and Celebrate the Lords Supper but the Church doth not then change the Law nor liberate us from obedience to a Command given by God but God liberateth us himself Hooker But that which most of all maketh to the clearing of this point is that the Iews who had Laws so particularly determining and so fully instructing them in all affairs what to do were not withstanding continually inured with causes exorbitant and such as their Laws had not provided for and so for one thing which we have left to the order of the Church they had twenty which were undecided by the expresse word of God so that by this reason if we may devise one Law they may devise twenty Before the Fact of the sons of Shelomith there was no Law that did appoint any punishment for blasphemers nor what should be done to the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath And by this means God instructed them in all things from heaven what to do Shall we against experience think that God must keep the same or a course by Analogy answering thereunto with us as with them Or should we not rather admire the various and harmonious dissimilitude of Gods wayes in guiding his Church from age to age Others would not only have the Church of the Iews a pattern to us but they would as learned Master Prynne with them saith take out of our hand the Apostolick Church that it should be no rule to us for saith he There was no Vniforme Church-government in the Apostles times at the first they had only Apostles and Brethren Acts 1. 13. no Elders or Deacons Their Churches increasing they ordained D●acons Act. 6. And long after the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church after that widowes in some Churches not at all In the primitive times some Congregations had Apostles Acts 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 4. to 33. Evangelists Prophets workers of miracles Healers c. Other Churches at that time had none of these Officers or Members and all Churches have been deprived of them since those dayes Ans 1. What Hooker saith is that which Bellarmine Sanderus Horantius and all Popists say for their Traditions against the perfection of the word to wit that the word of God for 2373. years between Adam and Moses saith Horantius was not written so Turrianus Bellarmine and the reason is just nothing to say the Jews might devise twenty Laws where we may devise one because the Jews were continually inured with causes exorbitant such as their written Laws had not provided for This must be said which is in question and so is a begging of the controversie that the Iews of their own head and Moses without any speciall word from God or without any pattern shown in the mount might devise what Laws they pleased and might punish the blasphemer and the man that gathered st●cks on the Sabbath and determine without God the matter of the Daughters o● Zelophehad as the Formalists teach that the Church without any word of God or pattern from the word may devise humane Ceremonial Prelats Officers of Gods house shapen in a shop on earth in the Antichrists head and the Kings Court the Surplice the Crosse in Baptisme and the like Now we answer both them and Papists with one answer that it is true there was no written Scripture between Adam and Moses which was some thousands of years Yea nor a long time after till God wrote the Law on Mount Sinai But withall what God spake in visions dreams and apparitions to the Patriarchs was as binding and obliging a pattern interditing men then to adde the visions of their own brain to what he spake from heaven as the written word is to us so that the Iews might neither devise twenty Laws nor any one of their own head without expresse warrant of Gods immediate Tradition which was the same very will and truth of God which Moses committed to writing if then Formalists will assure us of that which Papists could never assure us we shall

Surplice or some such like But since we have a pattern of perfectly formed Churches in the Apostles times who had power even In actu excercit● of Discipline and Church-worship and the Apostles mention things of an inferiour nature How is it that we have no hint of Crossing Kneeling Surplice corner Cap nor any such like unto these And yet they were as necessary for decency then 1 Cor. 5. Col. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 20. c. Rev. 2. 1. 2 14 18 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 40. as now Others of great learning reply that Christ is not the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of the Church for that is quite contrary to Gods Ordinance in establishing Kings Magistrates higher powers nurse-Fathers Pastors Doctors Elders for by this there should be no Kings Parliaments Synods no power of jurisdiction in them to make Lawes to suppresse and punish all manner of Idolatry Superstition Heresies But I answer that Christ is the only immediate Head King Law-giver and Governour of his Church as upon his shoulder only is the Government Isa 9. 6. And the key of the house of David Isa 22. 22. And by what right he is the head of all things and set above all principalities and power and might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this vvorld but also in that vvhich is t● come He is the head of the Catholick Church which is his body Eph. 1. 21 22 23. And he is such a head even in externals in giving Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers who for the vvork of the ministery perfecteth the Saints in vvhom the vvhole body of the Church is fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectuall vvorking in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body to the edifying of it self in love Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14 15 16. Now these places maketh Christ the only immediate head in externals and internall operation of that body which is the fulnesse of Christ Let any of the Formalists if Christ be not the only immediate Head Shew us of King or Bishop who is the Mediate Ministeriall inferior Head of the Catholick Church even in externall Government For Iohn Hart in his conference with D. Roinald saith Christ is the only principall imperiall and invisible Head but the Pope saith he is the visible and Ministeriall Head So do all Papists say but our Protestant Divines Answer That it is a repugnancy that a Subject or a Member of the King and Head should be in any sense both a Subject and a King a part or Member and a Head and Roynald saith This name to be Head of the Church is the Royall Prerogative of Jesus Christ Yea the head in externals must be with the Catholick body as Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world neither King nor Pope can in the externall Government be with the particular Churches to the end It is true the King may be with his Church by his Laws and power yea but so may the Pope be if all Pastors on earth be but his Deputies and if Pastors be but the Kings Deputies and sent by the King so is the King the Head of the Church but then the Catholick Church hath as many heads as there be lawfull Kings on earth But we desire to know what mediate acts of Law-giving which is essentiall to Kings and Parliaments in civill things doth agree to Kings Parliaments and Synods Christ hath not made Pastors under-Kings to create any Laws morally obliging the conscience to obedience in the Court of God which God hath not made to their hand if the King and Synods only declare and propound by a power of jurisdiction that which God in the Law of nature or the written word hath commanded they are not the Law-makers nor creators of that morality in the Law which layeth bonds on the conscience yea they have no Organicall nor inferiour influence in creating that morality God only by an immediate act as the only immediate King made the morality and if King Parliaments and Synods be under Kings and under Law-givers they must have an under-action and a Ministeriall subservient active influence under Christ in creating as second causes that which is the formall reason and essence of all Lawes binding the conscience and that is the morality that obligeth the soul to eternal wrath though King Parliament Pastors or Synods should never command such a Morall thing Now to propound or declare that Gods will is to be done in such an act or Synodicall Directory or Canon and to command it to be observed under Civill and Ecclesiasticall paine is not to make a Law it is indeed to act authoritatively under Christ as King but it maketh them neither Kings nor Law-givers no more then Heralds are little Kings or inferiour Law-givers and Parliaments because in the name and Authority of King and Parliament they Promulgate the Lawes of King and Parliament the Heralds are meer servants and do indeed represent King and Parliament and therefore to wrong them in the promulgation of Lawes is to wrong King and Parliament but the Heralds had no action no hand at all in making the Laws they may be made when all the Heralds are sleeping and so by no propriety of speech can Heralds be called mediat Kings under-Law-givers just so here as touching the morality of all humane Laws whether Civill or Ecclesiasticall God himself immediatly yea from Eternity by an Act of his free-pleasure made that without advice of men or Angels for who instructed him neither Moses nor Prophet nor Apostle yea all here are Meri precones only Heralds yet are not all these Heralds who declare the morality of Lawes equals may declare them charitative By way of charity to equals but these only are to be obeyed as Heralds of Laws whom God hath placed in Authority as Kings Parliaments Synods the Church Masters Fathers Captains And it followeth no wayes that we disclaime the Authority of all these because we will not inthrone them in the chaire of the Supreame and only Lawgiver and head of the Church they are not under-Law-givers and little Kings to create Laws the morality of which bindeth the conscience for this God only can do Ergo there be no Parliaments no Kings no Rulers that have Authority over men it is a most unjust consequence for all our Divines against Papists deny that humane Laws as humane do binde the conscience but they deny not but assert the power of jurisdiction in Kings Parliaments Synods Pastors SECT III. IF Iesus Christ be as Faithfull as Moses and above him as the Lord of the house above the servant Heb. 3. 1 2 3 4. Then as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle for saith he See thou make all things according to the pattern● shewed unto thee in the mount Heb. 8. 5. And

any Law-power except usurped when the Iews were now riper for destruction and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman povver to their own just desolation that came on them under Vespasian That they used witnesses will not prove they had Law to stone Steven for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders one brother hath no power of life and death over another as Erastus will grant yet with both there is use of witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly any lawfull civill power so all this is from a naked practise of those that alvvayes resisted the holy Ghost And the like I say of Paul who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison having received authority from the high Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints and to murther the Saints no high Priest can make over a Law-power to another which he hath not himself now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by Gods Law is the question Let us see Law or institution where the High Priests for of these only the Text speaketh did imprison and put to death either blasphemer or false Prophet or if by Moses his Law which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul it was either Law or practise that the High Priest had power to imprison or scourge or put to death any man and this was most proper to the King and the Civill judge and the Elders and Iudges in every City 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. 2. 6 7. Isa 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1 c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. 7. 5. 19. 12. 13. ver 18 19 20 21. 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King the Civill Iudge had power of all bodily punishments as of scourging death stoning strangling crucifying hanging But shew meany Vestigium or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power or did execute such power in any one man it is true Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy which is death But so the written Law of God the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civill judge even though there had been no controversie about the fact whether it was condemned in the Law of God or not we know Samuel not being judge but Saul being King supream Magistrate not executing judgement on the Amalekites he killed Agag certainly all Divines even Popish not excepted say Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag that Samuel not by vertue of his place as a prophet or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanedrim as Erastus would say but excited by an extraordinary motion of Gods spirit killed him as Phineas the son of Aaron slew Num. 25. Zimri and Cosbi 7 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office and Elias by office killed those ill doers as Erastus would dream The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civill Iudges and had power to put to death evil doers Now Erastus denyeth and with good reason that the Lords disciples should bear civill dominion over men as the Lords of the Gentiles Luk. 22. 24 25 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him to be a Iudge and a Ruler Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest by a Law-power to imprison and put to death 2. Erastus may with as good reason say that the high Priests had a Law-power by Gods institution to punish and to compell Christians to blaspheme God and to persecute them to strange Cities and to murther the Saints that believed in the Lord Iesus for he went to Damascus for this effect Act. 26. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with povver and Commission from the chief Priests This was not a Law-power in generall to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers but a limited particular Commission to murther the Saints who should hear and obey the Prophet like unto Moses whom the Lord should raise up Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this Had they not a Law on the contrary Deut. 18. Erastus Paul confesseth ingenuously before the Roman Judges that he persecuted the Saints and that he had authority and power from the Priests and Elders so to do Act. 22. 26. and we read not that the Priests or Paul were censured for these things as having done any thing against the Laws or will of the Romans Act. 5. They send their Officer the Captain of the Temple they imprison the Apostles they convene a Councell give out a sentence and agitate the killing of the Apostles amongst them while Gamaliel impede them Ans It is true the Romans heard that the Sanedrim exercised Civill jurisdiction and inflicted bodily punishment But for false Doctrine the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of Gods matters and whether the Sanedrim kept the rule of the Lords first institution Deut. 17. yea they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets or if the Civill judges only might do it and Erastus said before that the Romans gave the Iews liberty of all their own laws and customes in matters of Religion 2. What care would the Romans take whether the Iews killed and oppressed Iews for questions of their owne Religion so they remained loyall and true to Cesar 3. We know Herod Felix Festus Agrippa being willing to pleasure the Iews did oversee many breaches of Law in them especially in matters of the Gospel Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36 37 38 39 40. Ioh. 19. 15 16 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Lawes Because they accuse not the Sanedrim for this surely it followeth not We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas who were Romans and had not condemned them Act. 16. 38 39. 5. We deny not a lawfull judicature of the Sanedrim Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God to scourge and imprison and put to death the Apostles is the question we say they neither had Gods law nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws for that fact and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law Erastus If this was insolencie in the Jevvs which rose from the confusion of the two jurisdictions hovv say some of yours none can be

1 2 3. ver 8 9 10. cap. 3. 8 9 10. Coming behinde in no gift 1 Cor. 1. 7. In Covenant with God casting out the incestuous 1 Cor. 5. Separated from Idols 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. Espoused to one husband Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2. Established in the faith and increasing in number daily Act. 16. 5. Yea the Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galile and Samaria and were edified walking in the ●ear of the Lord and in the comforts of the holy Ghost and were multiplied Act. 9. 31. Now if the Christian Magistrate be their only Head and chief Feeder and all Elders but his servants Edifying à sub Magistratu from and under the Magistrate How were they edified and the compleat house of God the house wanting a head and the Church of the living God without the chief feeder and shepheard the Magistrate when all this time the Lord set spirituall Pastors and watchmen over them It is true it might be some defect that they wanted a Christian Magistrate who was their Nurse-father and keeper and avenger of both Tables of the Law But this defect was 1. A defect of the Church as men who may be injured and do violence one to another as men if they want one who beareth the sword to be avenged on evil doers But it is no defect of the Church as the Church 2. There might be some defect in the Church as a Church in this regard that without the Magistrate his accumulative power the edification of the Church extrinsecally might be slower Church Laws lesse vigorous extrinsecally without the sword and evil doers might infest the Church more but there should be no privation or intrinsecall defect or want in the Church either of an officer or integrall part of the Church because they wanted the Magistrate 3. When the first three hundreth year the Churches wanted Christian Magistrates afterward Constantinus convocated the Councell of Nice against Arrius yet professing that he was Episcopus without After him the Empire being divided into three Constantinus Constantius and Constans the second adhered to Arrius oppressed the godly Constans and Constantinus lived not long Though Jovianus Theodosius elder yonger Gratianus Martianus were favourers of the Church yet most of the Northern Kings were persecuters In the sixth hundreth year they began to be obstinate favourers of Heresie In the West Antichristianisme in the East Mahumetisme rose for the most part the Church wanted godly Magistrates and alway hath wanted Whatever power or means of life Christ hath given to his Church or pastors for the edifying of their soules either in Doctrine or Discipline by these is the holy Ghost efficacious on the hearts and conscience of the people of God as immediatly given by Iesus Christ without the mediation or intervention of any other means But Christ hath given power and means of life to preach the word to admonish rebuke Excommunicate to the Church and Pastors by which the holy Ghost worketh efficaciously on the hearts of the people of God which God hath given immediatly to the Church and Pastors especially in the Apostolick Church when there were no Magistrates and the holy Ghost is no wayes efficacious in the hearts of the children of God by the Laws Statutes and sword of the Magistrate Ergo God hath given to his Church and Pastors not to the Magistrate power and means of life in which the holy Ghost is effectuall and that immediatly and not to the Magistrate Or thus Whoever is the supream officer and head of the Church having under him all Church-officers as his servants by such God is effectuall in the consciences of men But Pastors Teachers Elders are such and no wayes the Magistrate Ergo The Proposition is thus made good by the word of reconciliation and the rod of the Lords power in the hands of men The holy Ghost worketh efficaciously in men Now the question will only be to whom this word of reconciliation is committed and the rod of God the Scripture saith to the Ministers never to the Magistrate 2 Cor. 5. 18. And hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation ver 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification 2 Cor. 2. 13. If I come again I will not spare 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye Shall I come unto you with a rod or in love 1 Tim. 5. 17. Act. 20. 28. 29. 30. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not you judge them that are within Matth. 16. 19 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 21 22. This word is no where committed to the Magistaate nor is the holy Ghost efficacious by the Laws and sword of the Magistrate to convert souls we know not Magistrates to be Ministers by whom we believe but Ministers only 1 Cor. 3. ver 5. Nor is the sword a kindely and intrinsecall mean of conversion This Argument may be further confirmed by all the notable differences that the Scripture holdeth forth to be between the Magistrate and the Ministers and Church As 1. The Church judgeth only those that are within the Church 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. The heathen Magistrate may ●udge both those that are within and without the Church and every soul is under his power Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Matth. 22. 21. And by these same Scriptures the Christian Magistrate being a lawfull Magistrate having under him both believers and heathen may and ought to judge both Ergo the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot judge those that are within by the word as the Church doth but only in some common coactive way by the sword to compell them to do their duty 3. The Magistrates Kingdom is of this world and he may fight with his sword to defend his own subjects and his subjects may fight for him But the Church and Kingdom of Christ are not of this world nor can the Church as the Church and the Ministers thereof fight or use the sword as is clear Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 4. The Magistrate beareth not the Sword in vain but he beareth the sword in vain over the consciences of men or to judge those that are within for the Church judgeth those that are within with no such weapon as the bloody Sword There is neither sword nor dagger nor any weapon of War required in the Church of Ephesus their censuring of grievous Wolves or false Teachers Act. 20. 28 c. Nor in the Apostles and Elders determining truth against perverters of souls Act. 15. 21 22 c. and 16. 4. Nor in the Church of Thyatira their not suffering Jezabell to teach Rev. 2. 20. Nor in Pergamus their not suffering those that held the Doctrine of Balaam Rev. 2. 14. Erastus l. 4. c. 6. p. 285. saith The Church can kill no man with the Sword There was no sword ever