A REVINDICATION OF PSALM 105.15. Touch not mine Anointed, etc.  
From some false glosses, now and heretofore obtruded upon it by Anabaptists: Proving That this Divine inhibition chief concerns Subjects: who let them be never so God's servants, yet are they not Gods Anointed as well as Kings.  
Being a Reply to a late seditious Pamphlet, called, A VINDICATION, etc.  JUDAS vers. 19 
These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.  Vers. 16. 
These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts, and their own mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.  Vers. 8. 
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.  
Printed by H. Hall. M.DC.XLIII.   

A REVINDICATION OF PSALM. 105. VERS. 15. Touch not mine Anointed, etc.  
WHy, A vindication of Psalm 105.15? Touch not mine Anointed, etc. As if the man would perversely intimate to these misunderstanding times, that there were no other Text of Scripture to that selfsame sense and scope; from which he would pretend to vindicate this. And so (this vindicated) the Truth itself 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 fly 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 wrenched away. No, no, I can assure him, the musters are complete, & 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 heresy: but there's as ill as that, to strike at the person whom that truth concerns; which is villainous treachery. For why would he not have Kings here meant to be Gods Anointed? because such are absolutely inhibited here to be touched. 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 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 royal 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 triple forces from another wing. At him? No. I hold it more honourable to retreat at first onset rather than offer to skirmish with a seditious Pamphleter, against whom all victory is but loss and shame.  
Wherefore waving him (for he is prepossessed) 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, than 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 says, The Lord forbidden. A phrase (both here and in many other places of Scripture) noting not only an inhibition, but a conscience convicted of that inhibition: and not only a conviction, but a resolution not to practise against it: and not only 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 only to subjects, and as subjects? surely the man's 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 confess, 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 says again, 1. Sam. 26.9, 10, 11. Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed? He demands Who, in the universal 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 says, and be guiltless, to note, there's no humane cause or command can sufficiently warrant hereunto: much less 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 himself; noting, that Kings are punishable for their offences, not by men, much less their own Subjects, but are to be referred herein to God alone. Lastly he says, The Lord forbidden, 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 fanatics, out of their Enthusiasms, 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 contrary to this awful 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 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 business of so high a nature; and concerning so mighty a personage, as that of a King, was of itself worthy of severest punishment: And David by this example of Justice, lets us understand that it is Capital but to intent 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 nowadays that mischeivously belie themselves to have had hands in such and such perilous and unwarrantable facts as indeed they durst hardly approach; 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 to have been actors 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 less then treasonably; and therefore aught 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 read) and that for touching the Lords anointed, with a traitorous touch (whether of hands, mouth, mind or intent) if there was no Law or inhibition concerning Kings properly to forbid them so to do? Doubtless 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, than whom there is not an higher here on earth, and are only 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 inferior Governor or Magistrate.) And if to resist (take it as the letter sounds) be an act of fare 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 Power) must needs be peculiarly understood of Kings: and that divine inhibition (of touching the Lords Anointed) must by no means 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 only seeks to cavil 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 general Truth (for he has confessed it) nor yet to invalide the true intent of other Texts, that might well be produced to such a purpose, but only 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 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 knows, there are besides so many to be produced for it? So that it is more than manifest, it is not a misapplyed proof (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 think but slightly of all other Places to that purpose.  
2 If he did only intent ingenuously to vindicate this place of the Psalm; then what do those other places of Scripture crowded in the Title Page, not only 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 Libel 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 Psalm from some false glosses lately obtruded on it by Royalists. Spoken as like a vulgarist as may be. Whose common interpretation of Scripture is of more error than the Vulgar Translation itself▪ 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 schisms? Nay, why vindicates he not this very Psalm 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 gloss 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 Royalists, and Court-Divines; Men of learning, piety, loyalty, order, discretion. Nay, and why vindicates he not this very Psalm and verse, from the Anabaptists; that have taken it from both Kings and Priests, and given it to the Common people? Ha! the Anabaptists? why it is only 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 Anarchy, by planting here (their own Idol of confusion) Parity. Hence seeking to heighten the vulgar, first to a spiritual pride, and so to a civil rebellion. As well witnesseth that his main Collection hereupon, with all the dependences; That subjects are God's anointed, as well as Kings. etc. which sounds paradoxal to any sensible ear. 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 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 Psalm, he reproved Kings for their sakes: yet 'tis not so evident and express 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 to Kings; yet was it not to Kings in regard of their own subjects. For Abraham, Isaac, etc. may not be said to be subject unto those Heathen Kings. 4. It does not always 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 Anointed 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 than their charge and obligation. 6. David is inspired to call the patriarches Gods Anointed, knowing them to be the same deputies, 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 only 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 only of Abraham, Isaac etc.— Who were neither actual Kings,— nor Kings and Priests by office— and they were meant of them, not as they were Kings and Priests— but as foreigners and subjects— and are to be interpreted and applied, not to Kings and Priests, as they are such,— but to the faithful, 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 himself. As that Abraham, Isaac etc. 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, only 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 personal safety. But where he happens to favour himself, let us now see the truth & the Scriptures contradicting him. 1. When he saith, That these words were originally spoken and intended of Abraham etc. Originally it may be, if he mean historically, but not Only: For thus he bars hinselfe of his own sense in the general, 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 himself and his Posterity, as The Lords Anointed: as appears in that he made it for a constant and public Psalm of thanksgiving, 1. Chron. 16.7. Now acts and instances of perpetual and solemn Services ought not to be restrained to temporary or private concernments. 2. That Abraham, Isaac, etc. were neither actual Kings and Priests, neither Kings and Priests by office. The Man is mightily deceived: They were Kings and Priests (though not so ritual and ceremonial as afterwards) yet actual and by office. It is too too plain against him; the Patriarches governed not only in Oeconomie, but in Policy, even so fare as in highest affairs, viz. of life and death, in peace and war. 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 Patriarches, went through the Judges, and ended or rested in Kings. They being all equally of one type, deputation, presentation, vicegerency. 3. That the Patriarches were Subjects. That's a kind of Bull or contradiction, to say, Patriarches and Subjects: for the word Patriarch sounds such a thing as King. And they were such, as is proved above. And Kings are but Patriarches or chief governing Fathers of their Countries. How were the Patriarches Subjects to those amongst whom they sojourned? When as Abraham acknowledging himself a Sojourner, they accounted him nevertheless a mighty Prince amongst them, Gen. 23.4.6. when themselves acknowledged that they were mightier than they. Gen. 26.16. when battle was given by one of these, to four 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 mutual privileges and indemnity, Gen. 21.21, 22.23. Gen. 26.28, 29. In one word, If the Patriarches were Subjects to those amongst whom they sojourned (as this man falsely imposes upon all Expositors) then let him show us from them▪ where the Patriarches did appeal to their Laws; (either for matter of Policy or Religion) and whether it was lawful for them so to do? or if they were at any time subdued to that subjection? But since it is so clear, that the Patriarches were not Subjects but Princes; now than it follows necessarily, that these words of the Psalm are to be understood of them, not as Subjects, but as Princes; and in that respect chief they are here called Gods Anointed. So that now the sense and sum 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 myself before all the nations of the earth: Mine Anointed, such as are consecrated to be Kings and Princes in a more special manner than yourselves: and have more right (by my promise) to dwell and rule in this land, than 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 than manifest that God speaks these words of the Psalm to the nations, even the greatest and proudest of them, whom he had execrated already and devoted into subjection to the Patriarches and Princes, whom he had voted and consecrated either to subdue or extirpate them as enemies; or else (as servants and Subjects) to reign and rule over them.  
3. Paradox, That the People and Subjects are Gods Anointed as well as Kings. The man does seem cordially to profess, that Kings (in sacred writ) are commonly called Gods anointed, etc. 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 grossly, 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 curtail those former texts, the very recital would sufficiently confute him. And all sensible men might read at once, and perceive, That Kings are not only Gods Anointed in the general; but by a special Emphasis called the Lords Anointed. Nor yet commonly so called; but really so consecrated. And not only is it with an oil of outward rite and Ceremony: but according to an Ordinance of perpetual 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 be the People mentioned in the 9 verse. When as the 8. verse hath the full sense in itself. And not only so, but David there distinguishes betwixt the Plebs (as they translate it) and the Vnctus. And speaks of them in the Plural; of himself (for Gods Anointed) in the singular number. Neither is it unlawful for David in the Psalms, 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 allegory: but by his leave, we may not suffer the genuine sense of the letter to be rejected; unless he can make it plain, there is such an absurdity in the literal, that it cannot stand with reason, but must necessarily therefore be transferred to another sense. Now these words in the bare and express 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 rectify one verse of a Psalm, according to the original sense and meaning; and yet to that purpose, sticks not to falsify 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 expressly teach, that the Prophet there speaks of them as two. As namely, for them, whose benefit was the 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 he 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 feign help himself in the New, viz. 2. Cor. 1.21. Now, though I might here distinguish of anointing; yet the exactness 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 Official rather then Personal unction; as of his Apostleship, preisthood, ministry, to which God hath anointed or ordained him, and had established or confirmed him with, or amongst them. But what say we to that Place, he citys, 1. Joh. 2.27. Here I yield that Gods faithful People, though Subjects have an anointing: but I dare not therefore infer hence, that they are (in all points) Gods anointed, much less, as well as Kings. For the Anointing here, is the holy Ghost, and his gifts; who though he anoint all the Elect to the general calling of Christians; yet not to the special calling of Kings, and Priests. All true Christians are anointed with the spiritual unction, that of regeneration: but not with the regal unction, that of inauguration; nor with the sacerdotal 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 equal account with God; would hereupon proudly account themselves equal with all men. And thus abuse those places, as arguments for their fanatic Parity, both in Church and Commonwealth. 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 & applied. Yea and S. Peter expresses so much, a royal 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 royal Priest hood, that is, an holy nation to offer up spiritual 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 carnal lusts and concupiscences. And thus much the man himself cannot but confess, That all true Christians are Kings and Priests in a spiritual sense, though they be but Subjects in a Politic sense. Having said thus much himself, I wonder what it is the Man would now contend for. Let Christians be subject in a politic sense (yet not merely politic neither, but out of Conscience, and with respect to the divine ordinance) and who will deny them to be Kings and Priests in a spiritual sense? Will any Christian King envy his Subjects they eternal crown of glory (as he speaks) and their reigning with Christ for ever, so they entrench not upon his temporal Crown; nor usurp to reign with him here on Earth? After this his own distinction, mark now what is become of his Proposition, That all the faithful are God's anointed, as well as Kings. Belike he means it only in a spiritual 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.  
4. Paradox, That it is more unlawful for Kings to make war upon their Subjects, by way of offence, then for Subjects, to take up arms against Kigns, by way of defence. All this is besides the vindication of the Psalm; I shall therefore be the less upon it. Otherwise this very point were worth a treatise: which is not to be looked for in a pamphlets refutation, That poor piece of the Psalm is but the pretence, here is the matter intended. While he stumbles about that, he hopes the ignorant and illaffected will swallow down this. But he shall never resolve nor persuade wise men and conscientious; unless he will take pains not to determine rashly but to discuss orderly, and instruct sound, in these 3 points at least, 1 What war offensive, and defensive is. 2. How fare forth a man may be defensive only, and yet not offensive. 3. Whether the defensive, or offensive, be on this side or that. To determine all these aright, were to satisfy consciences: but to urge and inveigh upon supposals, is to entangle them so much the more. Yet consider a little what he says upon supposition: It is more unlawful? that argues some unlawfulness, as well on one side, as another. Subjects may take up arms merely defensive; Not offensive then in any case; much less merely offensive. Why may they do so, as he says? because they are God's anointed too. Is that his main reason for their taking up arms? well. And how are they Gods anointed? He says himself, in a Spiritual sense. Why then, by the force of his own argument their arms ought only to be spiritual. For they are not (as he grants) Gods anointed in a Politic sense; and therefore politic their arms must not be. But he has other under-reasons. Because God hath forbidden Kings to injure or oppress their Subjects, being his anointed faithful 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 oppress their subjects— wage war against them, etc. How much less 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 says, he ranks his reasons to clear this point▪ That Kings must no more offer violence to their Subjects persons or estates (without legal conviction, and just cause) than 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 tremble: yet thus abused by this vile man, they are only 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, etc. The rest of it is so saucy, that it is not for a modest man to repeat. And this also is quite besides the proposed vindication: and serves only to speak the intention of the Author, Sedition. Yet is this he says, as false, as seditious, quite contrary to Scriptures. As. Prov. 8.15, 16. By me King's reign, (says God) and therefore not by men. Dan. 4.2. The most high giveth the Kingdom to whomsoever he will; and not they, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3, 4. The higher Powers are God's Ordinance, and not man's. God's Ministers they are, and therefore not the People's 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, Christ's Kingly office, and the Angelical order: yea and as the perfection of humane society, and of the Communion of Saints? What say they; when even wicked Kings are God's ordinance. 1. Sam. 12.13. and sent of God, not for their own so much, as for the people's sin, Prov. 28.2. We say, there are four ends of a Kings being: the first is God's 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 custom is) in the inauguration, the Counsel, the assistance, &c. yet can they have no right of challenge to the substance, or primary fundamental, 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 says) is not to foment this unnatural destructive war, etc. 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 Anointed, 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. Nevertheless, 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 clear, Exod. 22.28. Eccles. 10.20. Also in their Government and Authority; Rom, 13.1.2. Judas 8. As also in their rights and revenues, Matt. 22.21. Rom. 13.7. These be matters worthy of a serious Treatise by itself (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 tied 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 Psalm 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 paradoxal; let us (ere we end) look a little into his Authorities. His Authorities? where are they? why he says, S. Augustine, with sundry other expositors, conclude of the sense of this place according to his purpose. He but says so: but let us hear and see what S. Augustine himself, and others say indeed upon the place.  
S. Augustine moves this question, How the Patriarches could be called anointed, antequam esset unctio, before the regal anointing as yet was. It is very plain he speaks of the regal anointing; for he adds immediately Ex qua hoc nomen impositum est Regibus: by which anointing the name Anointed is attributed to Kings. So that the sum of the Fathers quaere is only this. Why this name anointed usual and proper to Kings, should be spoken of the Patriarches, while as yet no such unction was in use? And it is to be supplied in answer, That the regal unction as yet was not in the ritual way of it; but in the virtual 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 Patriarches might therefore not amiss 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 straighter sense: Vnde ergò illi jam tunc Christi appellabantur? nam Prophet as illos fuisse legimus. Why were the Patriarches than called anointed? because (as we read) they were Proph●●●… And before that (as the first sense) speaking of the special anointing; 〈◊〉 makes the same to begin and rest only in Kings, Quod à Saule coepit, cui David successit in regno, atque inde caeteri & reges judae, & reges Israel, continuatione sacratae consuetudinis ungebantur. Which name anointed begun in Saul, whom David succeeded in the kingdom, and thence was the sacred rite continued to the several Kings of Israel and Judah. Now let the Man show 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 Psalm justly against certain Jewish Doctors, 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 Regal unguent. Whereupon he infers, Ecce, ante Legem, Patriarchae, non uncti regaliun. guento Christi dicuntur. Behold. before the Law, the patriarchs are called Anointed, which were not anointed with the regal 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 nevertheless 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 regal ensign was anointing; Vnde & Saul Christus Domini dicitur, & in Psalmis legimus, Nolite tangere Christos meos. Whereupon (says the Father) Saul is called the Lords anointed; and likewise we read in the Psalm, Touch not mine anointed,  
These two be the chief of the ancient Expositors whom Prosper, Arnobius, Cassiodore, venerable Bede, Bruno, and others do follow, distinguishing indeed mostly betwixt the material, and the spiritual Chrism or unction. But it behoves to understand the reason of this wariness in discerning. It was principally because the heretical Rabbins strove here to exclude Christ, as the schismatical Anabaptists strive here to exclude Kings. We conclude therefore against them both, making up the true and full sense of the verse of this Psalm, with that of another, viz. Psal. 45. Though all Christians be Gods anointed in a spiritual sense; yet as concerning Christ, and Kings; (one in the mystical▪ the other in the in the literal sense) God, even their God hath anointed them above their fellows. Wherefore be it properly and specially, not only said but laid to the Consciences of all men, young and old, rich and poor, high and low, many or few,  Touch not mine Anointed, etc. 
FINIS.