The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered, by Roger Williams CHAP. CXVII. Third. The kings of Israel and Judah invested with a spiritual power. CHAP. CXVII. Third. The kings of Israel and Judah invested with a spiritual power. Truth. I therefore proceed to a third difference between those kings and governors of Israel and Judah, and all other kings and rulers of the earth. Look upon the administrations of the kings of Israel and Judah, and well weigh the power and authority which those kings of Israel and Judah exercised in ecclesiastical and spiritual causes; and upon a due search we shall not find the same sceptre of spiritual power in the hand of civil authority, which was settled in the hands of the kings of Israel and Judah. David appointed the orders of the priests and singers, he brought the ark to Jerusalem, he prepared for the building of the Temple, the pattern whereof he delivered to Solomon: yet David herein could not be a type of the kings and rulers of the earth, but of the king of heaven, Christ Jesus: for, First, David, as he was a king, so was he also a prophet, Acts ii. 30; and therefore a type, as Moses also was, of that great prophet, the Son of God. And they that plead for David’s kingly power, must also by the same rule plead for his prophetical, by which he swayed the sceptre of Israel in church affairs. David immediately inspired by the Spirit of God, in his ordering of church matters. Secondly, it is expressly said, 1 Chron. xxviii. 11, 12, 13, that the pattern which David gave to Solomon, concerning the matter of the temple and worship of God, he had it by the Spirit, which was no other but a figure of the immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God unto the Lord Jesus, the true spiritual king of Israel, John i. 49, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; Rabbi, thou art the King of Israel. Solomon’s deposing Abiathar (1 Kings ii. 26, 27,) discussed. Again, what civil magistrate may now act as Solomon, a type of Christ, doth act, 1 Kings ii. 26, 27? Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto Jehovah. Peace. Some object that Abiathar was a man of death, ver. 26, worthy to die, as having followed Adonijah; and therefore Solomon executed no more than civil justice upon him. Solomon’s putting Abiathar from the priesthood, examined. Truth. Solomon remits the civil punishment, and inflicts upon him a spiritual; but by what right, but as he was king of the church, a figure of Christ? Abiathar’s life is spared with respect to his former good service in following after David; but yet he is turned out from the priesthood. A case put upon occasion of Abiathar’s case. But now put the case: suppose that any of the officers of the New England churches should prove false to the state, and be discovered joining with a French Monsieur, or Spanish Don, thirsting after conquest and dominion, to further their invasions of that country; yet for some former faithful service to the state, he should not be adjudged to civil punishment:—I ask now, might their governors, or their general court (their parliament), depose such a man, a pastor, teacher, or elder, from his holy calling or office in God’s house? Another case. Or suppose, in a partial and corrupt state, a member or officer of a church should escape with his life upon the commission of murder, ought not a church of Christ upon repentance to receive him? I suppose it will not be said, that he ought to execute himself; or that the church may use a civil sword against him. In these cases may such persons, spared in civil punishments for some reason of or by partiality of state, be punished spiritually by the civil magistrate, as Abiathar was. Let the very enemies of Zion be judges. Secondly, if Solomon in thrusting out of Abiathar was a pattern and precedent unto all civil magistrates, why not also in putting Zadok in his room, ver. 35? But against this the pope, the bishops, the presbyterians, and the independents, will all cry out against such a practice, in their several respective claims and challenges for their ministries. The liberties of Christ’s churches in the choice of their officers. We find the liberty of the subjects of Christ in the choice of an apostle, Acts i.; of a deacon, Acts vi.; of elders, Acts xiv.; and guided by the assistance either of the apostles or evangelists, 1 Tim. i., Tit. i., without the least influence of any civil magistrate: which shows the beauty of their liberty. A civil influence dangerous to the saints’ liberties. The parliaments of England have by right free choice of their speaker: yet some princes have thus far been gratified as to nominate, yea, and implicitly to commend a speaker to them. Wise men have seen the evil consequences of those influences, though but in civil things: how much far greater and stronger are those snares, when the golden keys of the Son of God are delivered into the hands of civil authority! Peace. You know the noise raised concerning those famous acts of Asa, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah. What think you of the fast proclaimed by Jehoshaphat? 2 Chron. xx. 3. Truth. I find it to be the duty of kings and all in authority, to encourage Christ’s messengers of truth proclaiming repentance, &c. But under the gospel, to enforce all natural and unregenerate people to acts of worship, what precedent hath Christ Jesus given us? Jehoshaphat’s fast examined. First, it is true Jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast, &c.; but was he not in matters spiritual a type of Christ, the true king of Israel? Secondly, Jehoshaphat calls the members of the true church to church service and worship of God. If civil powers may enjoin the time of the church’s worship, they may also forbid her times. But consider, if civil powers now may judge of and determine the actions of worship proper to the saints: if they may appoint the time of the church’s worship, fasting, and prayer, &c., why may they not as well forbid those times which a church of Christ shall make choice of, seeing it is a branch of the same root to forbid what liketh not, as well as to enjoin what pleaseth? And if in those most solemn duties and exercises, why not also in other ordinary meetings and worships? And if so, where is the power of the Lord Jesus, bequeathed to his ministers and churches, of which the power of those kings was but a shadow?