Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	david_n	israel_n	judah_n	1,785	5	9.8153	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57106	A revindication of Psalme 105. 15. Touch not mine anointed, &c. from some false glosses, now and heretofore obtruded upon it by Anabaptists proving that this divine inhibition chiefly concernes subjects: who let them be never so Gods servants, yet are they not Gods anointed as well as kings. Being a reply to a late seditious pamphlet, called A vindication, &c.		1643 (1643)	Wing R1203; ESTC R220799	12,970	16

unlawfulnesse as well on one side as another Subjects may take up armes merely defensive Not offensive then in any case much lesse merely offensive Why may they do so as he saies because they are Gods anoynted too Is that his maine reason for their taking up armes well And how are they Gods anoynted He saies himself in a Spirituall sence Why then by the force of his own argument their armes ought onely to be spirituall For they are not as he grants Gods anoynted in a Politicke sense and therefore politick their armes must not be But he ha's other under-reasons Because God hath forbidden Kings to injure or oppresse their Subjects being his anoynted faithfull Christians So are they inhibited though their Subjects were Pagans And God hath likewise inhibited Subjects to resist and injure Kings Item God hath punished and plagued Kings for so doing Note then that it is in God to punish them And besides that he delivers them to Kings to punish them God will likewise plague Subjects if they offend their Kings Item that there is no law of God or man that hath given Authority to Kings to injure or oppresse their subjects wage warre against them c. How much lesse is there for subjects then Item that there is an Oath at the Coronation for Kings to observe So there is for Subjects likewise an Oaths of Allegiance But why persist I in replying to these Himself saies he ranks his reasons to clear this point That Kings must no more offer violence to their Subjects persons or estates without legall conviction and just cause then they offer violence to their Kings A point as clear as the noon day though he had produced never a reason for it Beside these and many his other instances of Scripture although true in themselves and to be regarded with tremblings yet thus abused by this vile man they are onely to be answered with indignation and abhorring because they are urged upon false grounds and suppositions and with a calumnious and seditions intent 5. Paradox That Kings were created by and for their subjects c. The rest of it is so sawcy that it is not for a modest man to repeat And this also is quite besides the proposed vindication and serves onely to speak the intention of the Author Sedition Yet is this he saies as false as seditious quite contrary to Scriptures As. Prov. 8.15 16. By me Kings reigne saies God and therefore not by men Dan. 4.2 The most high giveth the Kingdome to whomsoever he will and not they Rom. 13.1 2 3 4. The higher Powers are Gods Ordinance and not mans Gods Ministers they are and therefore not the Peoples Servants Why are they called Gods Psal 82.6 John 10.34 35. but because they are immediately from God and represent God here on earth as types and images of Gods divine providence Christs Kingly office and the Angelicall order yea and as the perfection of humane society and of the Communion of Saints What say they when even wicked Kings are Gods ordinance 1. Sam. 12.13 and sent of God not for their owne so much as for the peoples sinne Prov. 28.2 We say there are foure ends of a Kings being the first is Gods glory the second is his owne Salvation the third is the good of the Church the fourth is the welfare of the State which consists as well in punishing as rewarding Rom. 13.3 4. Now because the people are one end will they therefore claime to be the whole efficient though the people may secondarily and in some circumstances be interessed as in election where any such custome is in the inauguration the Counsell the assistance yet can they have no right of challenge to the substance or primary fundamentall the Ordinance the Power which is of God Yet let us take the best of this man as well as the worst His intent he saies is not to foment this unnaturall destructive warre c. It was execrable for any man to say otherwise And therefore even those that endeavour it are notwithstanding ashamed to proclaime it But he professes further that Kings are Gods Anoynted and in that respect their Persons are sacred and no violence ought to be exercised upon their persons especially by their Subjects As he confesses is cleare 1. Sam. 24.3 to 12.17.18.19 and chap. 26.7 to 25.2 Sam. 1.2 to 7. Neverthelesse this is not so cordially spoken as he pretends Because he conceals a great part of the truth For Kings are to be preserved inviolable not only in their persons but likewise in their Name and Honour as is also cleare Exod. 22.28 Eccles. 10.20 Also in their Government and Authority Rom 13.1.2 Jude 8. As also in their rights and revenues Matt. 22.21 Rom. 13.7 These be matters worthy of a serious Treatise by it selfe scarce to be medled with in a by-confutation to the intent people may know that all Allegiance and obedience of Subjects is not meerely tyed to the person of a Prince And therefore that a care or zeale to the person is not to be pretended in an injury or neglect to all the rest But I hold my duty here done to revindicate Psalme 105.15 from such false glosses as are notoriously obtruded on it by him here and have been heretofore by his like the Anabaptists now therefore his proofs all proving Paradoxall let us ere we end looke a little into his Authorities His Authorities where are they why he sayes S. Augustine with sundry other expositors conclude of the sense of this place according to his purpose He but sayes so but let us heare and see what S. Augustine himself and others say indeed upon the place S. Augustine moves this question How the Patriarchs could be called anointed antequam esset unctio before the regall anointing as yet was It is very plain he speaks of the regall anointing for he addes immediately Ex qua hoc nomen impositum est Regibus by which anointing the name Anointed is attributed to Kings So that the summe of the Fathers quaere is onely this Why this name anointed usuall and proper to Kings should be spoken of the Patriarchs while as yet no such unction was in use And it is to be supplied in answer That the regall unction as yet was not in the rituall way of it but in the virtuall way it was And if the man thinke to snatch advantage because the Father speaks at large ideo Christi quia etiamsi latenter jam tamen Christiani That the Patriarchs might therefore not amisse be called anointed because they were even then Christians though veiled Let him look before that and he shall find him expounding it in a straiter sense Vnde ergò illi jam tunc Christi appellabantur nam Prophet as illos fuisse legimus Why were the Patriarchs then called anointed because as we reade they were Proph●●●… And before that as the first sense speaking of the speciall anointing 〈◊〉 makes the same to begin and rest onely in Kings Quod à Saule coepit cui David successit in regno atque inde caeteri reges Iudae reges Israel continuatione sacratae consuetudinis ungebantur Which name anointed began in Saul whom David succeeded in the kingdome and thence was the sacred rite continued to the severall Kings of Israell and Judah Now let the Man shew us how S. Augustine excludes Kings here from being Gods anointed or respectively expounds it of Subjects or once intimates hereupon that Subjects are Gods Anointed as well as Kings S. Hierome vindicates this place of the Psalme iustly against certaine Jewish Doctours who in hatred to Christ our Lord the true Messiah perversely seemed to argue hence That none were to be called Christi Anointed that were not anointed with the Regall unguent Whereupon he inferres Ecce ante Legem Patriarchae non uncti regaliun guento Christi dicuntur Behold before the Law the Patriarches are called Anointed which were not anointed with the regall unction And that he meanes materially And even that intimates that Kings which since the Law are not anointed so materially and so ritually are neverthelesse virtually and divinely Gods anointed Further lest any should imagine that he should exempt Kings from being specially understood in this place he elsewhere applies it to them alone As commenting upon Isai 45.1 Where God calls King Cyrus his anointed and that according to the manner of the Hebrewes whose regall ensigne was anointing Vnde Saul Christus Domini dicitur in Psalmis legimus Nolite tangere Christos meos Whereupon sayes the Father Saul is called the Lords anointed and likewise we reade in the Psalme Touch not mine anointed These two be the chiefe of the ancient Expositours whom Prosper Arnobius Cassiodore venerable Bede Bruno and others doe follow distinguishing indeed mostly betwixt the materiall and the spirituall Chrisme or unction But it behoves to understand the reason of this warinesse in discerning It was principally because the hereticall Rabbines strove here to exclude Christ as the schismaticall Anabaptists strive here to exclude Kings We conclude therefore against them both making up the true and full sense of the verse of this Psalme with that of another viz. Psal 45. Though all Christians be Gods anointed in a spirituall sense yet as concerning Christ and Kings one in the mysticall the other in the in the literall sense God even their God hath anointed them above their fellowes Wherefore be it properly and specially not onely said but laid to the Consciences of all men young and old rich and poore high and low many or few Touch not mine Annointed c. FINIS