to Kings yet was it not to Kings in regard of their own subjects For Abraham Isaac c. may not be said to be subject unto those Heathen Kings 4. It does not alwaies imply to whom is the direction theirs is also the Obligation For we find sundry both precepts and promises in the Scripture that are spoken to one and yet concerning another 5. These words simply considered as concerning the Lords Anoynted may have in them the force of a promise as well as a prohibition and be directed to Princes generally for their faith and confidence rather then their charge and obligation 6. David is inspired to call the patriarchs Gods Anoynted knowing them to be the same deputies images and vicegerents of God as the times were as he himselfe was 7. 'T is absurd and seditious to say that these words were spoken onely to Kings and not to subjects as if the one were solely included and the other here excluded from their duty 2. Paradox That these words were originally spoken and intended onely of Abraham Isaac c. Who were neither actuall Kings nor Kings and Preists by office and they were meant of them not as they were Kings and Priests but as forrainers and subjects and are to be interpreted and applied not to Kings and Priests as they are such but to the faithfull though and as subjects In such a throng of Paradoxes the man is so overseen that he is forced in some things to thwart and contradict himselfe As that Abraham Isaac c. were neither Kings nor Priests and again that these words were not meant of them as they were Kings and Priests Where he grants the relation onely denies the application Item that these words are to be applied not to Kings and yet he willingly and cordially professes the place may be aptly applied to their personall safety But where he happens to favour himselfe let us now see the truth the Scriptures contradicting him 1. When he saith That these words were originally spoken and intended of Abraham c. Originally it may be if he mean historically but not Only For thus he barres hinselfe of his own sence in the generall while he solely ties it up to this Particular Spoken it may be too but not intended For there 's no question but David intended here to inciude himselfe and his Posterity as The Lords Anointed as appeares in that he made it for a constant and publick Psalme of thanksgiving 1. Chron. 16.7 Now acts and instances of perpetuall and solemne Services ought not to be restrained to temporary or private concernments 2. That Abraham Isaac c. were neither actuall Kings and Priests neither Kings and Priests by office The Man is mightily deceived They were Kings and Priests though not so rituall and ceremoniall as afterwards yet actuall and by office It is too too plain against him the Patriarchs governed not onely in Oeconomie but in Policy even so farre as in highest affaires viz. of life and death in peace and warre They likewise built altars and offered sacrifice God calls Abraham a Prophet Gen. 20.7 and the children of Heth call him a mighty Prince or King Gen. 23.6 And as they called the Patriarch a King so S. Peter calls a King a Patriarch Acts. 2.29 so little difference he understood betweene them Neither was it other for substance then one government of God that began in the Patriarchs went through the Judges and ended or rested in Kings They being all equally of one type deputation presentation vicegerencie 3. That the Patriarchs were Subjects That 's a kind of Bull or contradiction to say Patriarchs and Subjects for the word Patriarch sounds such a thing as King And they were such as is proved above And Kings are but Patriarchs or cheife governing Fathers of their Countreys How were the Patriarchs Subjects to those amongst whom they sojourned When as Abraham acknowledging himselfe a Sojourner they accounted him neverthelesse a mighty Prince amongst them Gen. 23.4.6 when themselves acknowledged that they were mightier then they Gen. 26.16 when battaile was given by one of these to foure of those at once with victory thereupon Gen. 14.14 when they were glad to treat with them as free Princes to article and covenant with them for mutuall priviledges and indemnity Gen. 21.21 22.23 Gen. 26.28 29. In one word If the Patriarchs were Subjects to those amongst whom they sojourned as this man falsely imposes upon all Expositours then let him shew us from them where the Patriarchs did appeale to their Lawes either for matter of Policie or Religion and whether it was lawfull for them so to do or if they were at any time subdued to that subjection But since it is so clear that the Patriarchs were not Subjects but Princes now then it followes necessarily that these words of the Psalme are to be understood of them not as Subjects but as Princes and in that respect chiefly they are here called Gods Anointed So that now the sence and summe of these words are literally and genuinely thus to be collected and apprehended as God should say O ye Kings Princes of the Nations Touch not with any offer or violence Mine whom I have chosen to my selfe before all the nations of the earth Mine Anointed such as are consecrated to be Kings and Princes in a more speciall manner then your selves and have more right by my promise to dwell and rule in this land then you Nay to whom I whose the earth is and all that dwell therein have given and subjected you So that it is thus more then manifest that God speaks these words of the Psalme to the nations even the greatest and proudest of them whom he had execrated already and devoted into subjection to the Patriarchs and Princes whom he had voted and consecrated either to subdue or extirpate them as enemies or else as servants and Subjects to reigne and rule over them 3. Paradox That the People and Subjects are Gods Anointed as well as Kings The man does seem cordially to professe that Kings in sacred writ are commonly called Gods anointed c. And to this purpose hee heaps his proofs in figures and not in words at length And that 's not so cordially as cunningly done For the many proofs that are against him them he gives you but grossely and in a clutter as if it did even irk him to recite them But the few proofes that he would have make for him them he drawls out at length And why so Because did he not curtall those former texts the very recitall would sufficiently confute him And all sensible men might reade at once and perceive That Kings are not onely Gods Anointed in the generall but by a speciall Emphasis called the Lords Anointed Nor yet commonly so called but really so consecrated And not onely is it with an oyle of outward rite and Ceremony but according to an Ordinance of perpetuall truth and mystery As shall further appeare in examination
of the so vehemently urged proofs for his opinion viz. Psal 28.8 where the Anointed in the 8. verse he will have to be the People mentioned in the 9. verse When as the 8. verse hath the full sense in it selfe And not only so but David there distinguishes betwixt the Plebs as they translate it and the Vnctus And speakes of them in the Plurall of himselfe for Gods Anointed in the singular number Neither is it unlawfull for David in the Psalmes to speake of himselfe in the third Person as appeares Psal 18.50 which is the next place he seekes to wrest to his purpose Where since he cannot deny his Anointed to be David and his seed he therefore will have David and his seed there to be Christ and his Elect. Which sense we deny not may be orthodoxally admitted in the allegorie but by his leave we may not suffer the genuine sense of the letter to be rejected unlesse he can make it plaine there is such an absurdity in the literall that it cannot stand with reason but must necessarily therefore be transferred to another sense Now these words in the bare and expresse letter are faire and full sense either backewards or forwards His King his anointed David David his anointed his King Which words either way will primarily beare no other sense then this that David proposes himselfe to be Gods Anointed as he was a King And is not this a most excellent Vindicatour now and sincere that pretending as his maine worke to rescue and rectifie one verse of a Psalme according to the originall sense and meaning and yet to that purpose sticks not to falsifie and distort two His next Place is Hab. 3.13 Is it possible that the man should be so blinded as not to distinguish there betwixt for thy people and with thine Anointed The words expressely teach that the Prophet there speakes of them as two As namely for them whose benefit was the end with him whose authority was the meanes It is very plaine from the two preceding verses that by the People the Prophet intends the Israelites and by he anointed Joshua their Captaine And I pray now whether was Ioshua a Subject or a supreame Magistrate Thus he is quite out of the old Testament where Kings and Princes in a peculiar manner are above 30 times called Gods anointed Now let us see how he would faine helpe himselfe in the New viz. 2. Cor. 1.21 Now though I might here distinguish of anointing yet the exactnesse of the Apostles own expression bids me here save the labour Hath anointed saith S. Paul to the People of Corinth not you but us and hath established us with you it may be precisely interpreted of his Officiall rather then Personall unction as of his Apostleship preisthood ministry to which God hath anointed or ordained him and had establish't or confirmed him with or amongst them But what say we to that Place he cites 1. Joh. 2.27 Here I yeild that Gods faithfull People though Subjects have an anointing but I dare not therefore inferre hence that they are in all points Gods anointed much lesse as well as Kings For the Anointing here is the holy Ghost and his gifts who though he anoint all the Elect to the generall calling of Christians yet not to the speciall calling of Kings and Preists All true Christians are anointed with the spirituall unction that of regeneration but not with the regall unction that of inauguration nor with the sacerdotall unction that of ministration Lastly to those places 1. Pet. 2. 5.9 Rev. 1.6 and 5.10 Those Places are sufficiently cleared by all orthodox Divines whether you call them Lutherans or Calvinists against the Anabaptists who blindly presuming hence of an equall account with God would hereupon proudly account themselves equall with all men And thus abuse those places as arguments for their fanatick Parity both in Church and Common-wealth But the learned and orthodox as I say dissolve those arguments and in that resolve all good Christians by distinguishing As namely that all true Christians are Kings and Priests 1. Comparatively in reference to the heathen and uncalled as may well be gathered frō those words in the old Testament Exod. 19.6 from which these in the New are taken applied Yea and S. Peter expresses so much a royall Priesthood that is a chosen generation a peculiar people which in times past were not a People 2. Spiritually and in a large sense As S. Peter also expounds himselfe in the one place a royall Priest hood that is an holy nation to offer up spirituall sacrifices And so doth S. John in the other Kings and Priests not to men but to God Offering up sacrifices of prayers and praises reigning and ruling over their own carnall lusts and concupiscences And thus much the man himself cannot but confesse That all true Christians are Kings and Priests in a spirituall sence though they be but Subjects in a Politicke sence Having said thus much himself I wonder what it is the Man would now contend for Let Christians be subject in a politick sence yet not merely politick neither but out of Conscience and with respect to the divine ordinance and who will deny them to be Kings and Priests in a spirituall sence Will any Christian King envy his Subjects they eternall crown of glory as he speaks and their reigning with Christ for ever so they intrench not upon his temporall Crown nor usurpe to reigne with him here on Earth After this his own distinction mark now what is become of his Proposition That all the faithfull are Gods anoynted as well as Kings Belike he meanes it onely in a spirituall sence and then it is no more then if he had said thus That all good Christians are Christians as well as Kings because Christian signifies Anointed 4. Paradox That it is more unlawfull for Kings to make warre upon their Subjects by way of offence then for Subjects to take up armes against Kigns by way of defence All this is besides the vindication of the Psalme I shall therefore be the lesse upon it Otherwise this very point were worth a treatise which is not to be lookt for in a pamphlets refutation That poore piece of the Psalme is but the pretence here is the matter intended While he stumbles about that he hopes the ignorant and ill-affected will swallow down this But he shall never resolve nor perswade wise men and consciencious unlesse he will take pains not to determine rashly but to discusse orderly and instruct soundly in these 3 points at least 1 What warre offensive and defensive is 2. How farre forth a man may be defensive onely and yet not offensive 3. Whether the defensive or offensive be on this side or that To determine all these aright were to satisfie consciences but to urge and inveigh upon supposalls is to intangle them so much the more Yet consider a little what he saies upon supposition It is more unlawfull that argues some
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. JUDE vers 19. These be they who separate themselves sensuall having not the Spirit Vers 16. These are murmurers complainers walking after their owne lusts and their owne mouth speaketh great swelling words having mens persons in admiration because of advantage Vers 8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh despise dominion and speake evill of dignities Printed by H. Hall M.DC.XLIII A REVINDICATION OF PSALM 105. VERS 15. Touch not mine Anointed c. WHy A vindication of Psalme 105.15 Touch not mine Anointed c. As if the man would perversely intimate to these misunderstanding times that there were no other Text of Scripture to that self-same sense and scope from which hee would pretend to vindicate this And so this vindicated the Truth it selfe must quite fall to the ground Else wherefore keeps he such a whittling about one slender arrow as he takes it when the quiver is full of strong shafts and such as flie mainly at the marke thinks he the whole hedge must needs lie along because the thiefe tugs hard to steale one stake out of it This house like the house founded upon a rock is built upon surer pillars then to totter though one prop be wrencht away No no I can assure him the musters are compleat the cause will be stoutly maintained against him though he would labour never so to invegle one single man away from it But this is not all to deprave a Truth which is factious heresie but there 's as ill as that to strike at the person whom that truth concernes which is villanous treachery For why would he not have Kings here meant to be Gods Anointed because such are absolutely inhibited here to be toucht So then he would therefore invalide the truth of the thing that so he might give licence to the injury of the fact Princes for him might have beene here also understood Gods Anointed but that it is here so plainly inhibited to touch them How to touch them with a very malignant touch For so the ancient in their translation expound tangere by malignari We see then who are simply the Malignants even those that dare offer to touch the Lords Anointed Now seeing he excepts against a single man in this royall army or rather will needs in simulate him to deny his colours we will set him aside awhile and have at him with double and treble forces from another wing At him No. I hold it more honourable to retreat at first on-set rather then offer to skirmish with a seditious Pamphleter against whom all victory is but losse and shame Wherefore waving him for he is prepossest I earnestly wish all Subjects that are Christian and godly to be well instructed in those words 1. Sam. 24.6 10 12. of their right meaning of their true use Which done throughbly then themselves may be pleased to call in the man and ask him If here be not a conscience fully convinced of a divine inhibition when he saies The Lord forbid A phrase both here and in many other places of Scripture noting not onely an inhibition but a conscience convicted of that inhibition and not onely a conviction but a resolution not to practice against it and not onely not to practice against it himselfe but not so much as yeild or suffer others so to do Ask him againe whether those words of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed be to be interpreted and applied not to Kings but onely to subjects and as subjects surely the mans own ignorance is not so much as that his malice dares now be peremptory neither his malice so much as to presume he may here also obtrude upon others ignorance If he have either knowledge or conscience he cannot but confesse here 's a Divine inhibition given to subjects not to Kings who are in a peculiar manner the Lords Anointed and not they Let all true subjects learn what David sayes again 1. Sam. 26.9 10 11. Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed He demands Who in the universall and indefinite to note that no man ought to do such an act of what place or power of what condition or concernment soever He sayes and be guiltlesse to note ther 's no humane cause or command can sufficiently warrant hereunto much lesse can Jealousies suspicions supposals excuses pretences which also have a guilt of their own besides that of the fact they would induce unto In the 10 verse he leaves the Lords anointed in every thing to the Judgement of the Lord himselfe noting that Kings are punishable for their offences not by men much lesse their own Subjects but are to be referred herein to God alone Lastly he sayes The Lord forbid or the Lord keepe me from noting it to be a worke of restraining grace not to stretch forth the hand against the Lords anointed The Fanaticks out of their Enthusiasmes do ill then to incite men hereunto by making it a motion of the Spirit But good Subjects heed moreover the 2. Sam. 1.14 16. See here a just example of one that did but pretend to practice contrary to this awfull truth The Amalekite had not once touched the Lords Anointed to such a fact For 't is evident in this Chapter as also 1. Sam. 31. and 1. Chron. 10. that King Saul died by his own act yet certainly the vile wretch had a will to such a deed and that made him boast as if he had done it Now to boast and lie and dissemble pretend in businesse of so high a nature and concerning so mighty a personage as that of a King was of it self worthy of severest punishment And David by this example of Justice lets us understand that it is Capitall but to intend or pretend violence to the Person of a Prince the Lords Anointed Yea the villain presuming others conscience to be as corrupt as his own belies himself in expectation of reward So there be many nowadayes that mischeivously belie themselves to have had hands in such and such perillous and unwarrantable facts as indeed they durst hardly approach in presumption to please men and be applauded But this Caitife was taken at his own word and abhorred for it and so ought all such to be served that dare but falsely boast to have bin actours in foule mischeif amongst men of honest conscience Yea as this Amalekite did belie himselfe into a Treason and worthily suffered for it so has this Pamphleter in this lie of his little lesse then treasonably and therefore ought to suffer in the censure of God and good men Besides this Amalekite why were Rechab and Baanah