Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
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
|
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
2. Sam. 4.10 11 12. Shimei 2. Sam. 16.5 1. King 2.46 Zimri 1. King 16.9 10 18 20. Bigthan and Teresh Esther 2.21 22.23 Zabad and Jehozabad 2. King 12.20 21. and 2. Chron. 24.26 and Chap. 25. verse 3. The servants of Amon 2. King 21 23 24. Why I say were all these arraigned condemned executed some according to the Laws of God some of men some of Nature as we reade and that for touching the Lords anointed with a traiterous touch whether of hands mouth mind or intent if there was no Law or inhibition concerning Kings properly to forbid them so to do Doubtlesse the Penalty so severely executed upon them evicts that there was even to this purpose an inhibiting Law both of God of Nature of Nations and of State Further Let Christian Subjects and conscientious lay advisedly to heart those words of the Apostle Romans 13.1 2 5. And if the Higher Powers be properly Kings then whom there is not an higher here on earth and are onely and immediatly under him that is the Highest of all which of necessity must be conceded if these words of S. Paul be compared with these of S. Peter 1. pet 2.13 14. For what S. Paul here requires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter there appropriates it to the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay and makes him to be the Higher or Supreme in a distinction to the inferiour Governour or Magistrate And if to resist take it as the letter sounds be an act of farre more daring insolence then to touch then aske this Man once more and you shall easily have his heart and intent why this divine inhibition of resisting Higher Power must needs be peculiarly understood of Kings and that divine inhibition of touching the Lords Anointed must by no meanes by properly so meant Tell him he is nothing so tender of the Sacred Person as he pretends that seeing he can say nothing against that Place where the Ordinance is not to be resisted he onely seeks to cavill at that Place where the Person is not to be touched And if to excuse himselfe he answer that he meant not to deny the generall Truth for he has confest it nor yet to invalide the true intent of other Texts that might well be produc'd to such a purpose but onely to vindicate this of the Psalmist in particular from the larger application as he yeilds to the stricter letter To him I now reply that I cannot believe this his specious pretext when I have such evident reasons for his seditious intent As 1. If he were satisfied with this Truth that the Lords Anointed is not to be touched nor the Higher Power resisted why then labours he to vindicate one text from it when he knowes there are besides so many to be produced for it So that it is more then manifest it is not a misapplyed proofe as he pretends but the main Truth of all that he strikes at presuming that the ill affected and easily blinded through a conceived vindication of one Place will thinke but sleightly of all other Places to that purpose 2 If he did onely intend ingenuously to vindicate this place of the Psalme then what do those other places of Scripture crouded in the Title Page not onely so impertinent to the pretended vindication but so calumnious so scandalous and that I may not say treasonable merely tending to faction to sedition Even that very thing argues evidently he never meant to vindicate the single place of Scripture at the top but only to calumniate and instigate by those many impertinences of abused Scripture at the bottom of his Title page As indeed he doth by all those misconstrued and misapplied Scriptures this seditious Libell quite throughout Thus without doubt yet have his whole intent But now let us examine him according to his pretences He would vindicate that verse of the Psalme from some false glosses lately obtruded on it by Royallists Spoken as like a vulgarist as may be Whose common interpretation of Scripture is of more errour then the Vulgar Translation it selfe Since he is such a zealous vindicator of texts from false glosses why undertakes he none of those many hundreds of places corrupted and wrested by the Papists and by the Anababtists both Authors and Fautours of the greatest heresies and schismes Nay why vindicates he not this very Psalme and verse from the Papists that have taken it from Kings and given it to Popes As for the Papists he nibbles indeed a little at them and letteth you understand their false glosse upon the place hath beene long since exploded But yet he is envious and tells you not by whom To say truth it was done not by any Vulgarist or Separatist but by such as he calls Royallists and Court-Divines Men of learning piety loyalty order discretion Nay and why vindicates he not this very Psalme and verse from the Anabaptists that have taken it from both Kings and Priests and given it to the Common people Hah the Anabaptists why it is onely in their justification and behalf that he is so eager in the vindication who have much abused the place to extirpate prelacy confound Magistracy and induce Anarchie by planting here their own Idol of confusion Parity Hence seeking to heighten the vulgar first to a spirituall pride and so to a civill rebellion As well witnesseth that his main Collection hereupon with all the dependances That subjects are Gods anoynted as well as Kings c. which sounds paradoxall to any sensible eare And mark me well if together with that all other the Proofes in this vindication prove not such 1. Paradox That this divine inhibition was given to Kings not to subjects Given has a fallacy in it Means he by way of direction or by way of obligation If by way of obligation then this must follow That Kings are here inhibited to touch or harm subjects but subjects not inhibited here but rather left at liberty to touch and harme Kings But as for the mere direction 1. It is not so palpable that these words were directed to Kings And therefore the ancient Fathers whom this man will have conclude after his exposition say plainly that these words are not to be found in the history but if God uttered them it was by an Angell or some secret instinct And although it be said in the preceding verse of the Psalme he reproved Kings for their sakes yet 't is not so evident and expresse that he reproved them by this saying For as much as Saying is not in the Hebrew And therefore this man is somewhat too confident when saying even to Kigns themselves he peremptorily glosses upon a word not found in the text 2. If we look to the parties literally and historically here concened Abraham Isaac Jacob their story plainly tells that the inhibition touch not is not so much directed from God to the Kings as from the Kings to their subjects concerning them Gen. 12.20 Gen. 26.11 3. Say this were directed