THE ROYAL PLEA; OR, A Defence of the KING'S SUPREMACY.  
Wherein It is Evidenced and maintained by Argument, that to punish a King Capitally, is absolutely against the word of God, and the established Laws of the Land; and that to do so great a wickedness, will cast a great dishonour upon our Nation, and the profession of Christianity.  
By R.B. Bach. of Divinity.  Eccles. 8.4. 
Where the word of a King is, there is power; and who shall say unto him, what dost thou.  
Printed in the Year 1649.   

TWO Quaeres whither by the Law of God, and the Laws of the Land, a KING may be questioned for his Life by his Subjects in case that he hath acted something against the foresaid established Laws.  
TO the first I answer Negatively out of the Law of God, my first Argument is deduced from the Test. of Chron. 15. verse 22. Touch not mine Anointed.  
Which Text the Papists appropriate chiefly to the Pope and his Clergy, others amongst us lead with more zeal and self lo e then knowledge, join issue with the Papists, and denying it to be meant of Kings apply the same to themselves, whom they suppose to be the only faithful and selected Saints.  
But to ruin their mistake in the exposition of this Text, the chief boundary which our Church hath to fence the Crown and protect the Person of King from all violent assaults, I shall with all humility and tender respect to weak Consciences labour to prove the contrary, i. e. That the Text concerns chiefly a King.  
My first reason shall be this.  
David calls Saul the Lords Anointed; 
2 Sam. 1.14.  yet was Saul no Priest which overthrows the assertion of the Papists, nor any of the faithful which refutes the position of the others; But Saul was a King, ergo, The Text relates primarily to the Person of a King.  
This prohibition is the original main Negative precept touching Princes and their safety. For this Touch not, is as much as Destroy not, as David said to Abishai 2 Sam. 26.9. Destroy him not (speaking of Saul) for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltless.  
A King is said to be the Lords Anointed in that he is appointed and assigned by God, and endued with gifts to that end and purpose, to rule his people according unto justice in the ways of piety and holiness, so that they neither dishonour God by their Schisms, Heresies, and other profanations, nor wrong their neighbours by unrighteous deal.  
I deny not but this word Anointed in the Text implies the Patriarches Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, touching whom prima intention this charge was given that they should not be touched. But I assert again, that they were Princes in their generations (as the Rabbins on the Text do attest) yet as they affirm who are our best expositors this term Anointed, as it began in the Patriarches, so it was continued to Kings who succeeded them in their government over divers countries. And when the patriarchal rule expired, the Regal taken place, being both one and the same in effect, as appears by those two places, Gen. 23.6. Acts 2.29. In the former whereof we find that Abraham the Patriarch is termed a Prince; so in the latter David the Prince is termed a Patriarch. Let me speak boldly unto you of the Patriarch Abraham, etc. From this prohibition, Touch not mine Anointed, we may draw this inference, That this Text falls under the notion, and binds as a Law of Nature, being given for such who lived in the old world long before the Law was given by Moses, being written in Stone-tables.  
It will follow then that they sin even against the law of nature who shall touch a King the Lords Anointed by punishing him with Imprisonment or death.  
Now that as in other things so in this term of Christi Domini the Lords Anointed, Kings do succeed or come in the room of Patriarches, we have first our warrant from the Holy Ghost applying this term here afterwards to Saul 1 Sam. 12.3.5. 2. Sam. 24.6. To David 2 Sam. 19.21. To Solomon 2 Chro. 6.42. To Ezekias Abac. 3. 1●. to josias Lam. 4. ●0. and to Cyrus Esa. 45. Secondly from Counsels. The third General Council at Ephesus. The great Council of Toledo the fourth. The great Western Council at Frankford. Thirdly from the consent of Fathers, which is evidenced by that expression in that Council at Franchford Beatus Hyeronimus & caeteri S. Scripturae tractutoris, etc. St. Hierome and the rest of the writers on the Scriptures understand it not of any others but of Kings. Nay even some of the Popish writers dissenting herein from their fellow Heretics interpret this Text to be meant of Kings, so Caietan and Genebrard upon the place,  
The fumme of all is this, That this phrase mine Anointed, expressed in the forecited Text, although it be there and in the 105. Psalm ascribed to the Patriarches, yet it is ever afterwards without variation continually appropriated to Kings, and to Kings only through all the Bible, and that no less than three and thirty times.  
These must not be touched. 

1. Not with virulent Tongues.  
2. Not with pestilent pens, both which are the Devil's weapons, they have their points and edges, they pierce like a sword and cut like raysors.  
3. Not with violent hands.    
Again not only their Persons and Names, but also their States fall under this prohibition, Nolite tangere, etc. Touch not mine Anointed. They that touch their Crowns and dignities by casting down the one, and blasting the other, and by denying them the free use of those Royal Prerogatives which have been entitled to them by their Predecessors, and confirmed by the a tient Laws, those I pronounce from the mouth of God his word, to offend against this Negative precept, Touch not mine Anointed.  
A second Argument is that of David Psal. 51.4. Against thee, thee only have I sinned: etc. so the words are to be read according to the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put emphatically by way of exclusion to praeclude all humane and inferior power which is in subjects from meddling with the sacred persons of their Kings, by inflicting on them corporal or capital punishments, which is against the Law of nature, as for the hand to strike the head: And to cut this off to cure any distemper, either in it or the body, I suppose you will say is a piece of madness: and so against the light of reason, which God has set up in us to preserve ourselves from ruin, which w●ll inevitably fall upon each particular, when the whole Kingdom shall be destroyed: And when the head shall be taken off (which God avert) the body and all the Members must needs perish, and fall into sad obstructions: which that we may not feel, with the loss of Peace, Religion's Nurse. I shall propose a third Argument.  
A third Argument Results from the following words in the forecited Text, Psal. 51.4. Ut justificeris in sermonibus tuis, & purus sis quando Tu judicas; That thou mayst be justified thy in saying, and pure when thou judgest. Hereby David (who was no more King than another, in that every King now is (as he was) ordained by God himself, as appears by Prov. 8.15. Ps. 2.6.) intimates thus much unto us, that when God, in whose hands are the hearts of Kings, to dispose and turn them as it seemeth best unto Him, and under whose power Kings only are, to be punished by him alone for their offences, when he shall judge, that is, punish them, he shall do what is just and proper only to him, but when Subjects shall take upon them to do this, they cannot be held pure from the guilt of a great offence which the Holy Ghost plainly says is worse than witchcraft, 1 Sam. 15.23.  
A fourth Argument may be drawn from Prov. 30.31. where the Holy Ghost does (as it were hedge in the Person of a King from being questioned for his life, when he uses this choice and singular expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Against whom there is no rising up i.e. against whom none may justly, and none can with their own persons safety, rise up either by taking up arms against him, or by calling him as a Delinquent into question, etc.  
A fifth Argument on which all Divines, both ancient and Modern do much insist in, this case is that Text in Eccles. 8.4. Where the word of a King is there is power, and who shall say unto him what dost thou? The meaning of which Text is, That Kings are under the Directive power of the laws, so as they are bound in Conscience to Obey, so fare as they are agreeable to the Word, and cross not their Prerogatives, but not under the Corrective, as if they might be punished, as other Subjects, when they have transgressed.  
A sixth Argument is held forth unto us out of the Text in Timothy, 1 Tim. 2.1.2 verses, where the Apostle en oyns us to pray for Kings, 1.5. to pray to God to keep them in the way of justice, and to pray to God to turn them into that way again, if they have at any time gone out of it. This is the duty of subjects, & this was ever the practice of the Primitive Christians, according to that saying of Saint Ambrose, Preces & lachrymae sunt christianorum arma. i e. Christians when they are oppressed by their Rulers ought to guard themselves with no arms, and oppose them not otherwise then with prayers and tears: to this purpose read 1 Sam. 8.17, 18. They shall cry unto the Lord, etc.  
A seventh Argument shall be, that in the thirteenth to the, Roman, vers. 1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers which Text is explained by S. Peter, 1 Ep. 2.13. Submit yourselves unto every Ordinance of man, whether it be to the King as supreme. Now I appeal to every man's soul and conscience, how they can be said to subject themselves to their King, who trample him (as it were) under their feet, by laying his honour in the dust, and subjecting his royal person to their own wills, and making him to stand as a Delinquent at a bar of justice, which was never done by any King since or before the Conquest, neither warrantable by God's word, but rather quite opposite to it, and to the practice of all nations, which either now are, or ever have been before us, and wholly repugnant to the Statute and Common Laws of this Realm, together with the Magna Charta, as the most knowing Lawyers have assured me, both by word of mouth, and under their own hands.  
We read in the 2 Chron. 25.3. That Amazias slew Zubad and Jehozabud his servants, who slew joash his father, and their King, we find likewise v. 2. this recorded of him, that Amazias did what was right in the sight of the Lord. If he did that which was right in destroying them, surely they did wickedly in destroying their Lord the King.  
I shall conclude with that exhortation of David to Abishai, which was cited before, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed, and be guiltless? 1 Sam. 26.9. And I shall solicit the Almighty with my most earnest prayers, that every one whose heart is now embittered against the King may be so mollified and the edge of his purposes so blunted, that he may put on David's resolution, when he had surprised King Saul in the cave at Ergedi, and say as we read, 1 Sam. 24.6. The Lord forbidden that I should do this thing unto my Master the Lords Anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Anointed of the Lord.  
And seeing that we have a David, and another Solomon for our King and Governor let all good Subjects echo forth that acclamation which was founded by those, 2 Kings 16.16,  
God save the King, 
 God save the King.  
Amen.   
FINIS.