be my refuge till this tyranny be overpast Yet for all this Tyranny ne perdas saith David yet for all this he fell not into the sin of all sins which they stand so much on usâ—rping power in things spirituall Yes and that would they have found too Why did he call himself Head of the Church Indeed no Samuel did that for him He it was that said When thou wert little in thine own eyes the Lord made thee Head of the Tribes of Israel of which the Tribe of Levi was one for that Samuel must answer But Saul went further a great deal yea further then Oza For he took upon him to sacrifice in person himself to offer burnt offerings upon the very Altar the Highest part of all the Priests Office that is usurped further then ever did any And all this David knew yet it kept him not from saying ne perdas They never have done with persecuting and shedding Priests blood was Sauls singer in that too In that he passed He put the High Priest himself and fourscore and four more all in one day to the sword and all upon the single accusation of Doeg Innocent in the fact and all Loyall to him and all but for a douzen of bread given to David This could not but grieve David exceedingly it was for his sake yet he saith ne perdas though for all that And one case more I give in for advantage It is well known he was a Demoniack one actually possessed with an evill Spirit which is a case beyond all other cases yet destroy him not Abisai though So that if Abisai in stead of Inimicum tuum had said God hath shut up this Tyrant this Vsurper this Persecutor this possessed party this what you will David would have said no other then he did ne perdas still I would fain know which of all their destructive cases is here wanting They be all here all in Saul all in him at the time of this motion yet all alter not the case David saith still as he said If then all be in Saul all incident all eminent in him nay if his case be beyond all said it must be that David here saith Though he be any of these though he be all these destroy him not or destroy him and be destroyed destroy him and be the child of perdition I would be loth to deceive you There may seem yet to want one thing Here was no High Priest to excommunicate him or give warrant to do it yes that there was too for Abiathar scaped that great Massacre of Priests by Saul and now he was lawfull High Priest Now he fled to David thence and brought the Ephod with him so as by good hap the High Priest was with David now in the Camp and the Ephod too There wanted no just cause you see to proceed against Saul There wanted no lawfull Authority the High Priest we have There wanted no good will in Abiathar ye may be sure his father and brethren having been murthered by Saul so here was all or might have been for a word speaking all would not serve David is still where he was saith still ne perdas knew no such power in the High Priests censure was not willing to abuse it cannot see Quis any person to do it nor any cause for which it is to be done That Abisai may not do it nor Abiathar give warrant to it his charge is honest ne perdas His reason good Christus Domini His sentence just nor erit insons His challenge unanswerable quis mittet manum 46. By giving Subjects leave to rise and resist in such a case would also be the ready way to bring the Church and State into such a condition as to have no King in Israel and so bring in â—dolatry and Anarchy which in his Sermon upon that Text he impuâ—es to that want and therefore fol. 126. saith Our first thanks then shall be this first the ground of all the rest for a King This very thing that there is one and that this deâ—ect Non erat Rex hath not taken hold on us The shout of a King is a joyful shout was a true saying out of the mouth of a false Prophet Balaam but forced thereto by God That a joyfull shout and this a wofull cry Hos 10 3. Nonne ideo nobis nullâ—â— Rex quia non timemus Dominum Are we noâ— therefore without a King because we fear not God And our fear to God was not such but he might justly have brought us to the miseâ—able plight The more cause have we to thank him that we have one And when I say one I mean first any one for be he Nebuchadonosor yet must we pray for him Or be it Jeroboam him though God gave in his wrath yet he took away in his fury the worse wrath of the twain Oâ— be he who he will to have one is a matter of thanksgiving for bâ—â—â—er any then an Anarchy Better any one a King then every one a King and every one is more then a King if he do what he lists It calleth to mind the cry of the Beasts in the Fable when they were in consultation to submit themselves to the Lion as to their King For when it was alleadged it was like enough he would do they knew not well what what he listed which they had cause to fear they all cryed Praestat unum timere quà m multos Betâ—er one Lion do so then all the Bears and Wolves and wild Beasts of the Forrest as before they did First then for this that there is any King c. 47. And therefore in sum in what he speaks against Uâ—urpation he must be also understood as all others in that kind that is striving to cast what odium he can upon it that ambitious persons might be more discouraged from such undertakings and not as meaning that Subjects have right to rise or resist upon any pretence of civil or legal right him whom Divine Providence hath at any time brought in for to be Head of the Church And this especially if they find in this man all that can be expected in him that beginneth a Royal race that is both Election and Conquest like as in David He is not like Nimrod a stranger by birth and relation found to force himself in by his own greatneâ—s and power but being of the same Nation and Religion is at first freely chosen and followed and that by a more nâ—merous and eminent party then that which David first headed During which time he was also undeniably signal in those victories he obtained over such as were their enemies by which he might come to claim right and dominion over them even as by election he might claim it over he other of his own party and so have just dominion over all For it is a gross mistake to think that either Election or Conquest the two ways to transfer right in this kind can be otherwise or more truly
and thereupon render the abolition of it both just and reasonable Now as the abolition of the Masse Book was formerly in respect of like superstition cast towards it For the late Archbishop sect 35. num 7. punct 5. affirmeth that himself had heard some Jesuites confess that in the Lyturgie of the Church of England there is no positive Error And being pressed why then they refused to come to our Churches and serve God with us In like manner as now Conformists may be asked now when no positive error can be objected neither They answered saith he they could not do it because though our Liturgy had nothing ill yet it wanted a great deal of that which was good and was in their Service So that if this answer were not valuable to excuse Refusants then I see not how the like can excuse any now 41. All which well weighed I know no effectuall answer to be made to such as have been Recusants or Non-conformists if we fall from that principle of acknowledgement of that Supremacy which the Church then gave the chief Magistrate amongst us accounting him in all causes and over all Persons as well Ecclesiastical as Civil supream Head and Governour If upon any pretence we forsake this hold we not only lose the direct way to unity and peace but do let in error on every side to over master and confound us And although this power were formerly given to the chief Magistrate while they had the stile of King or Queen yet if we shall impartially consider the intention of that Act whereby this power was exercised by the King we shall finde that it like all Laws having a regard to the perpetuall conservation of Peace Order and Unity did not limit it to persons so stiled onely but that it might be kept for ever did for ever unite it to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is to the Monarch thereof although no King nor more crowned nor anointed then some of the Roman Emperors were and accordingly we shall find Mr. Hooker to understand and apply it for reckoning up the Subject whereof his eight Books are to treat He saith The eight is of the power of Ecclesiastical dominion or Supream Authority which with us the highest Governour or Prince hath as well in respect of domestical jurisdictions as of that other forrainly claimed by the Bishop of Rome In which expressions of Highest Governour or Prince Prince signifying the same with Highest Governour or Governour in chief we may presume he meant it due to the King as Monarch and not to the Monarch as King And a great pitty it is that we had not the Book it self to have been further satisfied herein and in the power belonging to him But for want thereof we will adde the judgement of such others as have been generally held most famous in their generations 42. Bishop Andrews in his Sermon upon that Text of Touch not mine annointed proves at large that all persons in Supream Power are to be esteemed Gods annointed although material Unction and other Ceremonies be wanting as primarily he saith It was meant of such as were Patriarchs For saith he fol 798. in the first World the Patriarchs were principal persons and as I may safely say Princes in their generations and for such holden and reputed by those with whom they lived I may safely say it for of Abraham it is in expresse terms said by the Hethites Audi Domine Princeps Dei es inter nos Thou art a Prince of God that is a mighty Prince here among us As indeed a Prince he shewed himself when he gave battel and overthrow to four Kings at once Of Isaac no less may be said who grew so mighty as the King of Palestine was glad to intreat him to remove further off and not dwell so neer him and then to go after him in person and sue to him there might be a league of amity between them And the like of Jacob who by his sword and bow conquered from the Amorite the mightiest of all the Nations in Canaan that Country which by will he gave to Joseph for possession It was neer to Sichar well known you have mention of it Joh. 4. 5 Great men they were certainly greater then most conceive But be their greatness what it will this is sure they were all the Rulers the people of God then had and besides them Rulers had they none And that is it we seek Pater was in them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too Fatherhood and Government And these two made them Patriarchs unctos ante unctionem saith S. Augustine anointed before there was any material anointing at all And as he said it to be properly due to such and none but such as were Rulers of the people of God so because Christian Magistracie in the latter ages was mostly executed by and under the notion of Kings so doth he afterwards prove how they were to succeed in this right Which done he proceeds to censure that usurpation of power foreignly claimed by Pope and Cardinals who under pretence of this title would enter common with Christian Kings proving that thirty three times in Scripture the terms of Gods anointed are used and no where to be applied to any but Patriarchs Christ himself or of Kings all shewing farther that others Priests Prophets or the like although they were anointed and might be so called yet were never stiled the Lords aâ—ointed it may be uncti but not Christi And then setting forth the Kings more proper claim to this title as being chief Christian head he after asks Who be they If we go by the book Princes why then touch not Princes that is such as are in principal power or Rulers in chief And thereupon he after adds to take their supposition off that thought this Authority depended on the Ceremony of Unction or the like fol. 800. This claim by the Ceremony is clean marred by this Text For when these words here were spoken there was no such Ceremony instituted it was non ens no such thing in rerum natura that name not up til Moses Now these here in the Text were in their graves long before Moses was born no meos then no claim by the Ceremony And after it came up no Priest went out of Juâ—â— to Persia to carry the Ceremony to Cyrus yet of him saith Isaiah Haec dicit Dominus Cyro Christo meo Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus mine anointed And yet never came there any oil upon his head So that even after it was taken up yet the Ceremony and the claim by it would not hold The truth is the Ceremony doth not any thing onely declareth what is done The party was before as much as he is after it Onely by it is declared to be that he was before and the which he should have been still though he had never so been declared The truth may and doth subsist as with the Ceremony so without it It
may be retained as with some it is and with us it is and it may be spared as it is with others spared or retained all is one no claim groweth that way But last of all where it was used as by Samuel to Saul by Zadoc to Solomon yet they claimed nothing in the parties they anointed but called them still Gods and never their own anointed They knew no claim lay by it Nay if it had been a Sacrament as it was but a Ceremony he that ministreth the Sacrament hath no interest in the party by it but God alone and then much lesse he that performeth but a Ceremony is to plead any meos So that every way this claim vanisheth of Christi Pontificis Afterwards he reproves all claim made by the people of power over them as though they were their anointed or had his right to govern from their suffâ—ages And setâ— forth also by divers instances of personal failings both in Government and Religion as well among the Roman Emperors as others that no such pretence of fault could debar the person him that was in power of this priviledg and title so as to give liberty of touching him either with hand tongue or pen or the like For saith he It is the administration to govern not the gift to govern well the right of ruling not the ruling right It includes nothing but a due Title it excludes nothing but Vsurpation And he asks the question who is anointed and answers it on whom the right rests And so again he asketh Who is inunctus and answers He that hath it not that is as I conceive hath not this right by administration to govern or immediate possession of the Government If he be a Foreigner like the Pope he is to be accounted an Usurper as medling in anothers mans jurisdiction Or if he be as he after instanceth in Nimrod one who cared for no anointing thrust himself in and by violence usurped the throne came in rather like one steeped in vinegar then anointed with oil rather as a Ranger of a Forrest then a Father of a family he was no anointed nor any that so cometh in These words at first view will seem to a prejudiced Reader to contradict and overthrow all said before in defence of the authority and respect to be given to the chief Magâ—strate but when we shall have considered those qualifications that debar him this anointing and then whether it abate Subjects in their just obedience or him only in having just title to it and then whether this repulse and resistance of such an one may be made whilst he is first entring or afterwards also and by whom then made we may then well reconcile him to what was said before For first having spoken of that sacred power which belongs to each Christian King as anointed he was to oppose to it all foreign claim whether craftily entred upon as the Pope mentioned before or forcibly as now instanced in Nimrod especially if a Heathen or of another Religion in which respect he could not be reckoned among the Christi not caring for anointing or to have care of Church or Religion which is the drift of this Discourse When as if we should understand that every one that a discontented party will call Usurpers or do make a forcible entry may be by those that live under his obeisance withstood upon any allegation we make him contradict himself in commending that submission which Primitive Christians gave to their former Emperors although known Usurpers and some of them different in Religion 43. But he will be best understood to gainsay such kind of Liberty or meaning by the immediate following words But on the other side David or he that beginneth a royal race is as the Head on him is that right of ruling first shed from him it runs down to the next and so still even to the lowest border of his issue so that then you finde that it is not that which now is usually called Usurpation the possâ—ssion of the government by a new Person or Family that is Usurpation indeed for how then should any amongst Christians be thought a lawfull beginner of a Royal Race who in his possession must needs dispossess some person of the old family which could never be supposed to want some such relating to him in kindred as to be apparantly within the lowest borders of this natural Issue as he said before And if he did do so as David did to the family of Saul and have not the like Divine anointing and warrant as he had how shall Subjects be so guided in their distinction as not mistake and think every one a Usurper For if such an one be a Usurper then are Christian Kingdoms governed by a race of Usurpers Nay by Usurpers too if as he saith right be to be derived from the first beginner of a Race 44. And it is also to be noted that this derivation of right from first seisure as though his right were best even as Davids was better then any that followed doth contradict that fancy of prescription as meer fancy indeed wherein it is made worst or rather to have no worth at all but that the Successors do arrive at Lawfulness accordcording as by degrees they shall be removed from it 45. And to prove his meaning to be that Subjects may not upon any such Allegation rise or resist we shall finde him instancing in the case of Saul of whom he saith fol. 791. I verily think God in this first example of his first King over his own people hath purposely suffered them all to fall out and to be found in him even all that should fall out in any King after him to enforce their Position that so we might find them answered to our hands To touch them in Order they would easily have quarrelled at Sauls mis government Not at the first he then was a mild and a gracious Prince Never came there from any Princes mouth a more princely speech then the first speech he is recorded to have spoken Quid populo quod flet what ailes the people to complain A speech worthy everlasting memory so they complain not without cause But within a while he grew so stern and fierce as no man might speak to him Upon every light occasion nay upon no occasion at all his Javelin went straight to nail men to the wall not David onely but Jonathan his Son and Heir apparant and no cause why In the 13. Chapter it is said Saul had then been King a yeer and reigned two years in Israel yet it is well known his reign was fourty years Their own Writers resolve it thus how long soever he reigned he was a King but two years All the time after he was somewhat else or somewhat more then a King And they let not to tell what applying to Saul that of the Psalm Tyrants that have not God before their eyes seek after my soul And that Vnder thy wings shall