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 he would pretend to vindicate this. And so (this vindicated) the Truth it self 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 mark? Thinks he the whole hedge must needs lie along, because the thief tugs hard to steal 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 complete, and 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 concerns; 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 been 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 ancients 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 insimulate him, to deny his colours; we will set him aside a while, and have at him with double and trebble forces from another wing. At him? No. I hold it more honourable to retreat at first onset, ra­ther then offer to skirmish with a seditious Pamphletter, 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 throughly, 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 [Page 2]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 practise against it: and not onely not to practise against it himself; but not so much as yield or suffer others so to do. Ask him again, 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, there's no humane cause or command can sufficiently warrant hereunto: much lesse can Jealousies, suspicions, supposalls, excuses, pretenses; 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 himself; noting, that Kings are punishable for their offences, not to men, much lesse their own Subjects, but are to be referred here in to God alone. Lastly he sayes. The Lord forbid, or the Lord keep me from: noting it to be a work of restraining grace, not to stretch forth the hand against the Lords anointed. The Fanatticks, 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 practise contrarie to this awfull truth. The Amalekite had not once touched the Lords Anointed to such a fact. For ('tis evident in this Chapter, as also 1. Sam. 31. and 1. Chron. 10.) that King Saul dyed 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, and 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, belyes himself in expectation of reward. (So there be many nowadayes that mischeivously belie them­selves to have had hands in such and such perilous and unwarrantable facts, as indeed they durst hardly approch; in presumption to please men, and be applauded.) But this Caitiff was taken at his own word, and ab­horred for it: and so ought all such to be served, that dare but falsely boast [Page 3]to have been actours in foul mischief, amongst men of honest conscience. Yea, as this Amalekite did belie himself 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, 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 hand, 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 immediately 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 ask this Man once more (and you shall easily have his heart and intent) why this di­vine inhibition (of resisting Higher Powers) must needs be peculiarly un­derstood of Kings: and that divine inhibition (of touching the Lords An­ointed) must by no means be 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 himself) he answer that he meant not to deny the gene­rall Truth (for he ha's 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 yields) to the stricter letter: To him I now reply; that I cannot be­lieve this his specious precept, 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 knows, there are besides so many to be produced for it? So that it is more then manifest, it is not a misapplyed proof (as he pretends) but the main Truth of all, that he strikes at, pre­suming [Page 4]that the ill affected and easily blinded through a conceived vindi­cation of one Place will think but slightly 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 ment to vindicate the single place of Scripture at the top: but onely 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 Libill quite throughout. Thus, without doubt, you have his whole intent.

But now let us examine him according to his pretenses. 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 self. 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 Anabaptists; both Authours 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 been 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 Rovallists, 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 Idole of confusi­on) Parity. Hence seeking to heighten the vulgar, first to a spirituall pride, and so to a civil rebellion. As well witnesses, 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 Proofs 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 harm Kings. But as for the mere direction. 1. It is not so palpable, that these words were di­rected [Page 5]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 Angel or some secret instinct. And although it be said in the preceding verse of the Psalme, he reproved Kings for their sakes: yet 'tis not so evident and ex­presse that he reproved there by this saying. For as much as Saying is not in the Hebrue. And therefore this man is somewhat too confident; when (saying even to Kings themselves) he peremptorily glosses upon a word not found in the text. 2. If we look to the parties literally and histo­rically here concerned (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 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 alwayes 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 duputies, images, and vicegerents of God (as the times were) as he himself was. 7. 'Tis 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. Paradoxe, That these words were originally spoken and intended onely of Abraham, Isaac &c.—Who were neither actuall Kings,—nor Kings and Priests by office—and they were meant of them, not as they were Kings and Priests.—but as forainers 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 forst in some things to thwart and contradict himself. 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 ration; onely denyes 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 applyed to their per­sonall safety. But where he happens to favour himself, let us now see the truth and the Scriptures contradicting him. 1. When he faith, That these words were originally spoken and intended of Abraham &c. Originally, it may be; if he mean historically; but not Onely. For thus he barres him­self of his own sense in the generall; while he solely tyes it up to this Par­ticular. Spoken it may be too; but not intended. For there's no question but David intended here to include himself and his Posterity, as The [Page 6]Lords Anointed: as appears 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 Politie, even so farre as in highest affairs, 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 between 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 chief governing Fathers of their Countreys. How were the Patriarchs Subjects to those amongst whom they sojourned? When as Abraham acknowledging himself 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 battell 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 indemnitie, 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 appeal to their Laws; (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 follows 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 sense and summe of these words are literally and genuinely thus to be collected and apprehended; as God should say, O ye Kings and Princes of the Nations, Touch not, with any offer or violence, Mine, whom I have chosen to my self 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 [Page 7]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 he 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 proofs 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 oyl of outward rite and Ceremony: but according to an Ordinance of perpetuall truth and mystery. As shall further appear 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 bee the People mentioned in the 9, verse. When as the 8. verse ha's the full sense in it self. And not onely so, but David there distinguishes betwixt the Plebs (as they translate it) and the Ʋnctus. And speaks of them in the Plurall; of himself (for Gods annointed) in the singular number. Neither is it un­lawfull for David in the Psalmes, to speak of himself in the third Person; as appears Psal. 18.50. which is the next place, he seeks 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 plain, 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 fair and full sense, either backwards or forwards; His King, his anointed, David: David, his anointed, his King. Which words (either way) will primarily bear no other sense then this, that David proposes himself to be Gods Anointed, as he was a King. And is not this a most excellent Vindicatour now, and sincere? that pretending (as his main work) 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 too? 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 speaks of them as two. As namely, for them, whose benefit was the [Page 8]end; with him, whose authority was the means. It is very plain from the two preceding verses, that by the People, the Prophet intends the Israelites; and by the anointed, Joshua, their Captain. And I pray now, whether was Joshua a Subject, or a supreme 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 fain help him­self 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 had anointed or ordain­ed him, and had establisht or confirmed him with, or amongst them. But what say we to that Place he cites, 1. Joh. 2.27. Here I yield, 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 callings of Kings, and Priests. 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 from those words in the old Testament, Exod. 19.6. from which these in the New, are taken, and 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 himself in the one place, a royall Priesthood, 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 sense, though they be but Subjects its a Politick sense. Having said thus much himself, I won­der what it is the Man would now contend for. Let Christians be subject in a politick sense (yet not merely politick neither but out of Conscience, and with respect to the divine ordinance) and who will deny them to be [Page 9]Kings and Priests in a spirituall sense? Will any Christian King envy his Subjects the eternall crown of glory (as he speaks) and their reigning with Christ for ever, so they intrench not upon his temporall Crown; nor usurp 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 anointed, as well as Kings. Belike he means it onely in a spirituall sense: 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.

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 Kings, 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 pretense, 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 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 main reason for their taking up armes? well. And how are they Gods anoynted? He saies himself, in a Spirituall sense. Why then, by the forte of his own argu­ment, their armes ought onely to be spirituall. For they are not (as he grants) Gods anoynted in a Politick 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 is there for subjects likewise, an Oath 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 [Page 10]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 seditious intent.

5. Paradox, That Kings were created by; and for their subjects, &c. The rest of it is so sawey, 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 Authour, 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 own 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 own 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 claim 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 proclaim 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 clear, 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 onely in their persons; but likewise in their Name and Honour, as is also clear, Exod. 22.28. Eccles. 10.20. Also in their Government and Authority; Rom. 13.1, 2. [Page 11]Jude 8. As also in their rights and revenews, Matth. 22.21. Rom. 13.7. These be matters worthy of a serious treatise by it self (scarce to be meddled with in a by-confutation) to the intent people may know, that all Allegi­ance, and obedience of subjects, is not merely tyed to the person of a Prince. And therefore that a care or zeal 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) look a little into his Authorities. His Authorities? where are they? why he sayes, S. Augustine, with sundry other Expositours, 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 quare 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 supplyed 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 think 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: Ʋnde ergò illi jam tunc Christi appella­bantur? nam Prophet as illos fuisse legimus. Why were the Patriarch; then called anointed? because (as we reade) they were Prophets. And be­fore that (as the first sense) speaking of the speciall anointing; he males the same to begin and rest onely in Kings. Quod à Saule coepit, cui Da­vid success it in regno, at que indè caeteri & reges Judae, & reges Israel, contimtatione 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 Israel 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 justly against certain Jewish Doctours, who in hatred to Christ our Lord, the true Messiah, per­versly seemed to argue hence, That none were to be called Christi, An­ointed, that were not anointed with the Regall unguent. Whereupon he inserres, Ecce, ante Legem, Patriarchae, non uncti regali unguento Christi dicuntur. Behold, before the Law, the Patriarchs are called Anointed; [Page 12]which were not anointed with the regall unction. And that he means 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 Hebrews, whose regall ensigne was anointing; Ʋnde & 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 mineanointed.

These two be the chief of the ancient Expositours whom Prosper, Arno­bius, Cassiodore, venerable Bede, Bruno, and others do follow, distinguish­ing indeed mostly betwixt the materiall, and the spirituall Chrysme 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 litetall sense) God, even their God, hath anointed them above their fellows. 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 Anointed, &c.