Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	12,106	5	9.9774	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76337	The royall plea; or, a defence of the Kings supremacie Wherein it is evidenced and maintained by argument, that to punish a King capitally, is absolutely against the word of God, and the established lawes of the land; and that to doe so great a wickednesse, will cast a great dishonour upon our nation, and the profession of Christianitie. By R.B. bach. of divinity.	R. B.	1649 (1649)	Wing B170A; ESTC R200798	4,162	8

THE ROYALL PLEA OR A Defence of the KINGS SUPREMACIE Wherein It is Evidenced and maintained by Argument that to punish a King Capitally is absolutely against the word of God and the established Lawes of the Land and that to doe so great a wickednesse will cast a great dishonour upon our Nation and the profession of Christianitie By R.B. Bach. of Divinity Eccles 8.4 Where the word of a King is there is power and who shall say unto him what doest thou Printed in the Yeare 1649. TWO Quaeres whither by the Law of God and the Laws of the Land a KING may be questioned for his Life by his Subjects in case that he hath acted something against the foresaid established Laws TO the first I answer Negatively out of the Law of God my first Argument is deduced from the Test of Chron. 15. verse 22. Touch not mine Annointed Which Text the Papists appropriate chiefely to the Pope and his Clergy others amongst us lead with more zeale and self lo e then knowledge joyne issue with the Papists and denying it to be meant of Kings apply the same to themselves whom they suppose to be the only faithfull and selected Saints But to ruine their mistake in the exposition of this Text the chiefe boundary which our Church hath to fence the Crown and protect the Person of King from all violent assaults I shall with all humility and tender respect to weake Consciences labour to prove the contrary i. e. That the Text concerns chiefely a King My first reason shall be this David calls Saul the Lords Annointed 2 Sam. 1.14 yet was Saul no Priest which overthrowes the assertion of the Papists nor any of the faithfull which refutes the position of the others But Saul was a King ergo The Text relates primarily to the Person of a King This prohibition is the originall maine Negative precept touching Princes and their safety For this Touch not is as much as Destroy not as David said to Abishai 2 Sam. 26.9 Destroy him not speaking of Saul for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Annointed and be guiltlesse A King is said to be the Lords Annointed in that he is appointed and assigned by God and endewed with gifts to that end and purpose to rule his people according unto justice in the wayes of piety and holinesse so that they neither dishonour God by their Schismes Heresies and other profanations nor wrong their neighbours by unrighteous dealings I deny not but this word Annointed in the Text implyes the Patriarchs Abraham Isaac and Iacob touching whom prima intentione this charge was given that they should not be touched But I assert againe that they were Princes in their generations as the Rabbines on the Text doe attest yet as they affirme who are our best expositors this terme Anointed as it began in the Patriarchs so it was continued to Kings who succeeded them in their government over divers countries And when the Patriarchall rule expired the Regall tooke place being both one and the same in effect as appears by those two places Gen. 23.6 Acts 2.29 In the former whereof we find that Abraham the Patriarch is tearmed a Prince so in the latter David the Prince is termed a Patriarch Let me speake boldly unto you of the Patriarch Abraham c. From this prohibition Touch not mine Annointed we may draw this inference That this Text falls under the notion and binds as a Law of Nature being given for such who lived in the old world long before the Law was given by Moses being written in Stone-tables It will follow then that they sinne even against the law of nature who shall touch a King the Lords Anointed by punishing him with Imprisonment or death Now that as in other things so in this terme of Christi Domini the Lords Annointed Kings doe succeed or come in the roome of Patriarchs we have first our warrant from the Holy Ghost applying this terme here afterwards to Saul 1 Sam. 12.3.5 2. Sam. 24.6 To David 2 Sam. 19.21 To Salomon 2 Chro. 6.42 To Ezekias Abac. 3 1● to Iosias Lam. 4. ●0 and to Cyrus Esa 45. Secondly from Councells The third Generall Councell at Ephesus The great Councell of Toledo the fourth The great Westerne Councell at Franckford Thirdly from the consent of Fathers which is evidenced by that expression in that Councell at Franchford Beatus Hyeronimus caeteri S. Scripturae tractutoris c. St. Hierome and the rest of the writers on the Scriptures understand it not of any others but of Kings Nay even some of the Popish writers dissenting herein from their fellow Hereticks interpret this Text to be meant of Kings so Caietan and Genebrard upon the place The fumme of all is this That this phrase mine Annointed expressed in the forecited Text although it be there and in the 105. Psalme ascribed to the Patriarchs yet it is ever afterwards without variation continually appropriated to Kings and to Kings only through all the Bible and that no lesse then three and thirty times These must not be touched 1. Not with virulent Tounges 2. Not with pestilent pens both which are the Divells weapons they have their points and edges they pierce like a sword and cut like raysors 3. Not with violent hands Againe not only their Persons and Names but also their States fall under this prohibition Nolite tangere c. Touch not mine Annointed They that touch their Crowns and dignities by casting downe the one and blasting the other and by denying them the free use of those Royall Prerogatives which have been intituled to them by their Predecessours and confirmed by the a tient Laws those I pronounce from the mouth of God his word to offend against this Negative precept Touch not mine Annointed A second Argument is that of David Psal 51.4 Against thee thee only have I sinned c. so the words are to be read according to the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put emphatically by way of exclusion to praeclude all humane and inferiour power which is in subjects from medling with the sacred persons of their Kings by inflicting on them corporall or capitall punishments which is against the Law of nature as for the hand to strike the head And to cut this off to cure any distemper either in it or the body I suppose you will say is a peece of madnesse and so against the light of reason which God has set up in us to preserve our selves from ruine which w●ll inevitably fall upon each particular when the whole Kingdome shall be destroyed And when the head shal be taken off which God avert the body and all the Members must needs perish and fall into sad obstructions which that we may not feele with the losse of Peace Religion's Nurse I shall propose a third Argument A third Argument Results from the following words in the fore-cited Text Psal 51.4 Ut

justificeris in sermonibus tuis purus sis quando Tu judicas That thou maist bee justified thy in saying and pure when thou judgest Hereby David who was no more King then another in that every King now is as he was ordained by God himselfe as appears by Prov. 8.15 Ps 2.6 intimates thus much unto us that when God in whose hands are the hearts of Kings to dispose and turn them as it seemeth best unto Him and under whose power Kings onely are to be punished by him alone for their offences when he shall judge that is punish them he shall doe what is just and proper onely to him but when Subjects shall take upon them to doe this they cannot be held pure from the guilt of a great offence which the Holy Ghost plainly saies is worse then witchcraft 1 Sam. 15.23 A fourth Argument may be drawn from Prov. 30.31 where the Holy Ghost does as it were hedge in the Person of a King from being questioned for his life when hee uses this choice and singular expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Against whom there is no rising up i.e. against whom none may justly and none can with their own persons safety rise up either by taking up armes against him or by calling him as a Delinquent into question c. A fifth Argument on which all Divines both ancient and Moderne doe much insist in this case is that Text in Eccles 8.4 VVhere the word of a King is there is power and who shall say unto him what doest thou The meaning of which Text is That Kings are under the Directive power of the lawes so as they are bound in Conscience to Obey so farre as they are agreeable to the Word and crosse not their Prerogatives but not under the Corrective as if they might be punished as other Subjects when they have transgressed A sixth Argument is held forth unto us out of the Text in Timothy 1 Tim. 2.1.2 verses where the Apostle en oyns us to pray for Kings 1.5 to pray to God to kepe them in the way of justice and to pray to God to turn them into that way again if they have at any time gone out of it This is the duty of subjects this was ever the practise of the Primitive Christians according to that saying of Saint Ambrose Preces lachrymae sunt christianorum arma i. e. Christians when they are oppressed by their Rulers ought to guard themselves with no armes and oppose them no otherwise then with prayers and tears to this purpose read 1 Sam. 8.17 18. They shall cry unto the Lord c. A seventh Argument shall be that in the thirteenth to the Roman vers 1. Let every soule be subject to the higher powers which Text is explained by S. Peter 1 Ep. 2.13 Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of man whether it be to the King as supreme Now I appeale to every mans soule and conscience how they can be said to subject themselves to their King who trample him as it were under their feet by laying his honour in the dust and subjecting his royall person to their own wils and making him to stand as a Delinquent at a barre of justice which was never done by any King since or before the Conquest neither warrantable by Gods word but rather quite opposite to it and to the practise of all nations which either now are or ever have been before us and wholly repugnant to the Statute and Common Lawes of this Realme together with the Magna Charta as the most knowing Lawyers have assured me both by word of mouth and under their own hands We read in the 2 Chron. 25.3 That Amazias slew Zubad and Jehozabud his servants who slew Ioash his father and their King we find likewise v. 2. this recorded of him that Amazias did what was right in the sight of the Lord. If he did that which was right in destroying them surely they did wickedly in destroying their Lord the King I shall conclude with that exhortation of David to Abishai which was cited before Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26.9 And I shall sollicit the Almighty with my most earnest prayers that every one whose heart is now imbittered against the King may be so mollified and the edge of his purposes so blunted that he may put on Davids resolution when he had surprized King Saul in the cave at Ergedi and say as we read 1 Sam. 24.6 The Lord forbid that J should doe this thing unto my Master the Lords Anointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Anointed of the Lord. And seeing that we have a David and another Salomon for our King and Governour let all good Subjects eccho forth that acclamation which was founded by those 2 Kings 16.16 God save the King God save the King Amen FINIS