Phrophets likewise neiâ—her did it rest there but it extended to the Tabernacle it selfe and ran down to the vessels thereof even to the very Fireforks Ashpans and snuffers but unto whom said he at any time tu esâ— Christus meus Heb. 1.4 5. but unto Christ and Kings to Christ once Luke 2.26 to Kings thirty two times throughout the Bible four times by God himself Kings are called Christâ— mei mine Anointed six times to God Christi tui thine Anointed ten times of God Christi ejus his Anointed twelve times in termes terminant Christi Domini the Lords Anointed and therefore the old Translator observed it rightly when in the same word in the Hebrew and the Greek he speakes of the Priest he translates it unctus but when of the King alwayes Christus And as they are not uncti but Christi so they are not Christi populi but Christâ— Domini not the peoples Anointed but the Lords Anointed there may be a master of the ceremonies but therâ— must be no master of the substance they are the Lords Christs and they holâ— their kingdomes under him in Kingâ— service neither are the kingdomes oâ— the earth any bodies else but Gods Tâ—â— kingdomes are Gods Dan. 4.17 neither â—are they at any mans disposing but his He giveth them to whom he pleaseth loco citato therefore for whose they are they are the Lords and for what they â—re they may thanke him and none else Secondly they are the Lords because that by him and in him and â—hrough him they have their Dominion and regiment from him they have â—heir Crowns from his hands their Coronation Diadema Regis in â—manu Dei Esay 60.3 the Royal Diadem is in the hand of God and out of that hand â—e will not part with it so much as for â—nother to place it upon the Kings â—ead but it must be tu Posuisti tu Domine Thou O Lord hast set a Crown of pure gold upon his heard Psal. 21.3 The Emperours used to stamp their Coyne with a hand coming out of the Clouds holding a Crown and placing it upon their heads We have no â—uch Hierogliphicks in our Coyne as a hand coming out of a cloud but we have grace from heaven Dei graâ—ia so that there is not a King but may say with the Apostle Gratia Dei sum qui sum by the grace of God I am that I am and indeed Kings are Kings as Paul was an Apostle not of men neither by man but by God Thirdly they are the Lords Christs because not only their Crowns are in the hands of the Lord but he puts the Scepter into theirs nay the Scepters which Princes hold in their hands are Gods Scepters being there virga Dei iâ— manibus ejus It is Gods rod that is in their hands Exod. 17.9 and therefore right is the Motto and reason is it that they should be esteemed the Lords Anointed DIEV ET MON DRO IT GOD AND MY RIGHT none else have to do with it the Scepter of a kingdome in the hands of a King is the livery and seison which is given him by God of the whole Militia within his Dominion they that take away that put a reed into the hand of Christs Anointed and why should it be expected that they should deal otherwise with Christs Anointed then they did with Christ himself first put a reed in his hand and afterwards a Spear into his heart Fourthly Kings are the Lords Anointed because they sit upon his Throne sidebaâ— Solomon in Throno Dei Solomon sate upon Gods Throne 1 Cor. 29.23 but if Solomon should have lived in these our dayes instead of his six steps â—o his great Throne of gold and Ivory he should have six steppers to his Throne for the Gold and Ivory sake instead of having a Foot-stoole of Gold under his feet he should have much adoe to keep a Crown of pure Gold upon his head instead of hands to stay his Throne he should have hands enough to pull it down and cast it to the ground and instead of two and twelve Lyons fixed on each side as a guard unto his Throne he should have found many Lyons without regard running up and downe seeking how they might destroy him Lastly Kings are the Lords Anointed because they are Anointed with his own oyl Oleo sancto meo with my holy oyl have I Anointed him Psal. â—9 20 It is not with any common or vulgar oyl or oyl that any laies claime â—o but himself but it is Oleo meo my oyl neither is it oyl that was fetch'd oâ—â— of any common Shop or Warehousâ— bâ—t it is Oleo sancto with holy oyl oyl out of the Sanctuary And no question but this is a maine reason if they would speak out why some have such an aking tooth at the Sanctuaries because they maintain in them oyl for the Anointing of Kings but if the Alablaster box were broken the ointment would soon be lost If they could perswade the King out of the Church into the Barne they would soon pull a Reed out of the thatch to put into his hand instead of a Scepter or if they could get him to hear Sermons under a hedge there would not be materials wanting to make a Crown of Thornes to pleat it on his head Thus you see the the reasons why Kings are called the Lords Anointed because the Lord hath appropriated them unto himself not in a common and generall way but in a particular and exclusive manner my King my Kingdome my Crown my Scepter my Throne my Oyl where is there left any place for claime pride may thrust down Angels out of heaven and violence may crucifie the Son of God But all these things considered who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26.9 CHAP. V. Whether bad Kings be the Lords Anointed or not THey are for they are of the Lords sending and appointment as well as the good I will set an evill man to rule over them said God and I gave them a King in mine anger Hosea 13.11 which King was Saul which Saul was a Tyrant which Tyrant was the Lords Anointed when he was at the worst you cannot have two better witnesses then David and the Holy Ghost 1 Sam. 26. Cyrus was a Heathen Persian and one that knew not God yet for all that Haec dicit Dominus Cyro Christo meo Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus mine Antinted Esay 43.4 Nero was no good Emperour but a Monster of man-kind yet Saint Peter in whose dayâ—s he wrote his Epistle commanded all Christians to submit to him 1 Pet. 2.13 Hasaell whom the Lord fore-saw and fore-shewed unto his Prophet Elisha to be the destroyer of his people of Israel and one that should make them like the duâ—â— by threshing 2 Kings 13.7 on that wilâ—set their strong holds on fire slay their young men with the sword dash their children againâ—â— the wall and rip up their women with
his owne Religion or to be of his own opinion those are things which we ought not to have much lesse to Fight for for then let us not blame every panim that bakes his cake to the Queen of heaven or every ignorant votary who creeps to his own Image or makes his own Idoll for in this kind of Liberty we do but sacrifice unto the net wherein we see our selves caught and burne incense to the drag that hales us to destruction Christians are not to be at such liberty loose Christians are but lost men true Christians will be contented to be bound up in the unity of the same spirit and the bond of peace if the bond be broken the sheaf of corn is but so many loose eares and no way fit to be carried into the Lords barne if we be sons and daughters let us belong all to one house if we be servants let us be all of one family if we be lively stones let us be all of one building if we be severall grapes let us be all of one cluster if we be severall clusters yet let us be all of one vine if we be saints let us have a communion for this is it which is called the communion of Saints this is it which is called Religion which commeth of the word Religando which signifieth to bind Wherefore for a man not to thinke himself bound to those Articles which the Church proposes is to be of no Religion and to fight for this is to fight for nothing and if by Liberty of the Subject you mean liberty from oppression I know not any man or woman of any quality or condition what soever that knows what belongs to any such thing except it be some few who have liberty to do what they will with all the rest If we fight for the property of the Subject I beleeve the Subjects have so altered the property of their goods that had they but their old properties restored they would not think it good sighting for a new their expectations being so much deceiv'd that instead of fighting for the property of the Subject they rather see themselves subjest to have all things in common If we fought for the Laws of the Land whose Laws are they are they not the Kings will he not maintaine the foundation of his house from sinking will he not maintaine his leggs under him are they not supporters of that body politick whereof he is the head nay doth he not maintaine himself when he maintaineth them for the King and his Lawes may be compared to God and his word both inseperable for as God is the word and the word is God so the King is the Law as the life thereof and the the Law is the King as the body of that soule wherefore there needed not any fighting against the King for this except it be by those who would be Kings themselves And for priviledges of Parliament I remember to have read of Jack Cade in the Reigne of Richard the second who comming up as far as London-stone and resting himselfe thereon vowed that within three daies there should be no other Law but what did proceed out of his mouth now if it stand with the privilidges of Parliament to have a few Jack Cades relying on their London-stones to tell them what they must doe and they will have if it stands with the priviledges of Parliament to have Tumults to drive away their King Armies to awe themselves Countries to send up their Inhabitants in multitudes with Petitions in their hats cudgels in their hands and threatnings in their mouths so that the King was faine to slash the Citizens from White-Hall and then the Parliament the Country-men from Westminster-Hall then they have fought to some purpose but suppose that the Parliament did really Fight for all these particulars so did the King too so that the King may safely expostulate with His Parliament as S. Paul did with the rest of the Apostles are ye fighters for the Protestant Religion so am I are you for the Liberties of the Subject so am I are you for the Laws of the Land so am I are you for the properties of estates so am I are you for the priviledges of Parliament so am I and in all these things I have laboured more abundantly then you all where lies the quarrell then it must consist then in nothing but this that they do not believe one another in that they both fight for one and the same thing the meanes of reconciliation is taken away for should they differ in their grounds the Law may be Judge between them reason may be judge the world may be judges but rebus sic stantibus instead of having reason to fight we do but fight against reason both contend for the same power like the two women that contended for the same child Solomon judg'd the child to belong to her who would rather part with it all then have the child divided Now the Parliament would have this powerfull child divided half to the King and half to themselves the King rather then so is contented to lose all in whom there is most affection and pitty in him is the right of true parentage but because there are no Solomons in this age let us go the down-right way to worke The two Houses gave out that they fought in defence of the Kings Person Crown and Dignity do ye beleeve them don't ye believe the King did the Parliament said they â—ought only to bring him to his Parliament was the Parliament at Holmeby house or was it at Carisbrook-Castle in the Isle of Wight was he in honour or was he dignified by being there have they not fought then all this while upon a false ground have not they given themselves the lie and will you believe them still but instead of being instructed by Solomons divided child they divided their Solomon O Country-men do but remember what ill luck the Nation hath had by imprisoning their Kings when they had imprisoned the old Lyon and the young within their grates the 3 Henry and his son did they not like the inclosed wind make the whole Land shake had not the whole Kingdom a shrewd fit of an ague then did they not likâ— fire too close beseiged with clouds sally out in thunder and lightning to the terrour and destruction of all thosâ— who stood in the way what successeâ— had the imprisonment of Edward 2 upon his imprisonment followed his deposement and the murder of his person was a consequent of the deposement of his dignity but what becamâ— of those who did it is there one remaining of the name of Mortimer was not that Mortimer who was the cause of his Imprisonment beheaded were not all those who had a hand in it condignly punished Nay was not the immediate heire of this too much conniver at his fathers sufferings and too ready accepter of his fathers office imprisoned deposed and murdered in like manner and what
to the life of the great Deity these pictures for their better continuance are done in Oyle the colours of the Crown never fade they are no water colours as Kings with their own statues will not be angry though time and age devour them yet they will not suffer them spitefully to be thrown down or shot against so God though he will suffer Kings to dye like men and fall like other Princes yet he will not suffer his character spitefully to be rased or his Image defaced but though he will have them die like men yet he will have them live like Gods And if all this be not proof sufficient you shall hear God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost affirm as much God the Father plainly affirms John 10.34 Dixi dij estis I have said ye are Gods but if the stroke had been in the People then it should have been Nos diximus dij estis we have said ye are Gods God the Sonne told Pilate Thou shouldest have no power except it were data desuper given from above but if the people had given him that power then it should have been Thou should'st have no power except it were data desubter given from beneth and I am sure the Holy Ghost tels us per me Reges regnant by me Kings Reign but if they reigned by the suffrage of the People then it should have been per nos according to the moderne dialect they Reign by us and as long as we think fit and when wee thinke it fit no longer they shall reign no more they received their authority from us and we may recall it when we please and depose them when we list for they are but proxies and Attornies of the people see Buch. de jure Regni Fickerus Renecherus c. little thinking how by this powerfull doctrine of theirs they quite contrary to the word of God destroy the higher powers and give the whole Trinity the lie at once and if these testimonies are not sufficient I know why they are not because they never were confirmed by Act of Parliament CHAP. II. Whither the People can make a King or not IF the question be asked whether the people doe make the King or not I could no more grant it then I should grant that the people made heaven but if you ask me whether the people can make a King such a one as they use to make if they have not one already of Gods making they may such are Kings and no King not Reges but Regentes ad placitum Kings by Election are alwaies Kings upon condition and where the condition is so little worth the obligation is the lesse and but small security will be required for my own part I should be a shamed to were a Crown on my head when the people must raign and the King stand under the penthouse and I had as live they should make me a Iack a lent for Apprentices to throw their cudgels at me as to make me a King to be controuled by their Masters and every Tribune of the People for as an invitation to a dinner where there is no meat is but a distastfull banquet so the name of a King without its adjuncts is but a savourlesse renown and indeed such as they are not Actu Reges â—hey do but agere Regem they are not actuall Kings they doe but act the part of a King and I hold him that acts the part of a King an hour upon the stage to be as reall a King for his time and territories as the best King by election who is chosen but for his life herein consists the difference as the one must act his part as the Poets please so the other must act his part as the people please they must have their parts given them they must act it accordingly they must not so much as tread the Stage awry their subejects are both spectators and judges and it lies within the favour of the next society whether or no the Sonne shall come to act the Fathers part Such Kings as these the people may make but to make a sacred and an Anointed King an established and successive Monarch a King that hath this Hereditâ—tem in him a King that hath this Noli me tangere about him whose Writs were alwaies termed Sacri apices whose commands divalis jussio whose presence Sacra Vestigia whose Thorne is the Lords whose Scepter is his Rod whose Crown is his favour and whose representation is of himself the People can no more make such a deity then so many tapers can make a glorious Sunne or so many sparks of sprey and faggots can make a firmament of Stars CHAP. III. What is meant by Anointing of KINGS ANointing in severall places of Scripture betokens some spirituall grace as James 5.14 Call the Elders of the Church and let them pray over the sick anointing him with oyle in the name of the Lord which the Roman-Catholicks call extream unction though now adaies we only make use of the extremity and leave out the unction and therefore some will have the anointing of Kings to signifie some spirituall grace also which shall inable him with Religion and aptnes to govern wel which when they cease to doe their anointing falleth off and they cease to be Kings if they be not good they are none of Gods anointed and if they be not his anointed they care not whose they are This doctrine hath caused the shedding of more bloud then there is now running in the veins of living Christians whereas the truth is it is neither Religion nor virtue nor grace that is meant by this Royall Anointing Cyrus was Christus Domini as wel as Josias and Saul as well as David If Religion were that that did the deed then Cyrus had not been the Lords Anointed if virtue then not Saul if grace neither If Religion makes Kings then there should have been of old no Kings but those of Judah and now no Kings but those of Christendome It is Jus regnandi that is meant by this Royall anointing and Royall Vnction confers no grace but declares a just title only Vnxit in Regem he anointed him King includes nothing but a due title excludes nothing but usurpation gives him the administration to govern not the gift to govern well the right of ruling not of ruling right Kings are anointed with Oyl to shew that as they have Thrones to signifie that they are the Cesterns of Justice and Crowns to signifie that they are the fountaines of honours and Scepters to signifie that the hands which hold them are the Magazines wherein the whole strength and ammunition of Kingdoms are reposed so Anointing is a sacrâ—d signature betokning Soveraignity obâ—dience to the Throne submission to the Scepter allegience to the Crown and supremacy to the Oyle must needs be given for Oyle will have it poure Oyle and Wine and Water and Vineger or what other liquour you please together Oyle
though he defiled Vriahs bed and cloaked adultery with murther should the Priest Peers Prophets or people offer to depose Solomon because he had brought strange Wives into the Land and as strange Religion into the Church shall Elias entice Aâ—abs subjects to Rebellion because he suffered Jezebell to put Naboth to death and killed the Lords Prophets shall Peter take vengeance upon Herod because he put him in prison beheaded John the Baptist and killed James shall Reuben be no Patriarch becuse he was unstable as water shall Simeon and Levi lose their Patriarchal dignity because they were brethren in iniquity instruments of cruelty because in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will digged down a wall shall Judith be deposed from his rule and government for making a bargain with a Harlot upon the high way shall Issacher not be numbred amongst the other twelve because he was none of the wisest no reason they were Patriarchs as well as the rest which was the immediate government before Kings and indeed were Princes themselves princeps Dei es inter nos Gen. 23.6 Thou art a mighty Prince amongst us and thus much shall suffice and I hope sufficient to shew that no faults or pretâ—nces whatsoever can make it lawfull to depose or so much as to touch the Lords Anointed CHAP. VII What is meant by touching the Lords Anointed or stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed NOt dare to touch the Lords Anointed is an awfull reverence and a supposed difference to be kept between every Subject and his Soveraign especially in point of violence A Mother doubting the discretion of her Children and being to leave some curious looking-glasse in a place doth not command her children that they should not break it but that they should not touch it knowing full well that if they have the liberty to meddle with it in the least degree they may break it before they are aware and destroy it when they think least of any such matter So God is very chary of his King wherein he beholds the representation of himself and knowing him to be but brittle and though the most refined earth yet but glasse he commands his people that they should not touch his Anointed knowing that if they were permitted but to tamper with him in the least degree their rude hands may break it in peeces when they doe but think to set it right A touch is but of one man though but with one of his fingers yet this must not be Nolite tangere it is not said ne tangete wherein only the act of touching is forbidden but Nolite tangere whereby the will is also prohibited how wary should we be in touching when the Lord is so cautious in his prohibition Now stretching forth the hand may signifie a combination of many into one confederacy the hand being a part of the body composed of five members one and all but this must not be a most unhappy instrument is that hand that turns it self into the bowels of its own body if the head break out be chance the hands must not presently be in the head clawing with invenom'd nails the corruption there lest that itching desire turn into smart in the end lest when the peaceable day springing from one high shall happily visit us that now sit in darknesse and in the shadow of death we then see our bloudy hands and this once happy Kingdome the only pillow whereon peace had laid her head streamed like the Aegyptian Rivers all with bloud in a word by touching the Lords Anointed or by stretching forth the hand against him is meant any kind of violence that is used against sacred Majesty and the signification thereof is of a large extent for we stretch forth our hands when we doe but lift up our heels in scorne against him Who so lifteth up his heel Psalm 41.9 Secondly we stretch forth our hands against the Lords Anointed when wee doe but raise up Armes in our own defence Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and draweth damnation upon himself Rom. 3. Thirdly We stretch forth our hands against the Lords Anointed when wee stretch not our tongue and voice when we hear of any traiterous plots or conspiracies against the Lords Anointed and so bring such conspiracies to light It is a foul thing to hear the voice of conspiracy and not to â—tter â—â— Lev. 5.1 as good lay thy hand upon the Lords Anointed as lay thy hand upon thy mouth conceal the treason Fourthly We stretch forth our hands against the Lords Anointed when we doe not stretch forth our hands for the Lords Anointed when we see him assaulted with any danger or traiterous opposings Should a man see his own Father feircely assaulted and should not presently run into his rescue but should suffer him to be slain before his face would we not equally exclaim against him with the murtherers Qui non Vetat peccare Quum potest jubet he bids that doth not forbid with all his power â—like a true son such outrages and vioâ—â—nces to be committed against the Faâ—â—er of his Country Fifthly We touch the Lords Anoinâ—ed when we touch his Crown and digâ—ity intrench upon his Regalia hold or withhold his sons or daughters kill or â—ake prisoners his men of Warre Wee must take heed of defacing the garment as well as of hurting the person for they are both Sacred the precious Oyntment wet not Aarons head alone but it ran down upon his beard and down unto the skirts of his garment making all Sacred that was about him such touchings therefore are worse then when we touch the person with the greatest violence for then the Anointed are most touched when they are touched where the Anointing is which is their State and Crown dearer to them then their lives touch both the murder of the person is but a consequence to the deposement of the dignity Sixthly We touch the Lords Anointed when we take away his revenue and livelyhood from him the Devil thought that he had stretched forth his hand exceedingly against Job touch'd and touch'd him to the quick when he had procured Gods permission that the Sabeans and Caldeans should take away his Oxen and Asses his Sheep and Camels and plundred him of all he had God called this a destruction unto Job Job 2.3 and that before ever a hand was stretch'd forth to touch either his bone or his flesh Seventhly Is there no stroke but what the hand gives Yes the tongue can strike as well as the best Jere tels us so Venite percutiamus eum lingua come let us smite him with the tongue Jer. 18 18. and David said His tongue was a two-edged sword There is saith Solomon that speaketh and that waiteth too like the piercing of a sword It is bad enough in any or against any man but worst of all against the Lords Anointed for it is said Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor speak evil of
the return of all our holy mothers care and paines for education shall we take Gods word into our mouthes and preach Sedition Rebellion and Insurrection contrary to that word which we pretend to preach to maintaine Religion by Insurrection is to maintaine it by meanes condemned by the â—ame Religion we would maintain CHAP. IX Whether a King failing in his duty and not performing those things which he hath sworn unto at his Coronation so solemnly the People are not disobliged in their obedience unto him and may thereupon depose or put him to death IF Kings held their Crowns by Indentures from the People then were the People disobliged to their obedience unto him upon his failing in those things whereto he hath been sworn on his part but if they receive their Crowns immediatly from God and that by him alone Kings Reign as hath been heretofore proved at large then all the failings that can be in a King can but make him a bad King but still he must remain a King the Oath assures us of his being a good King not of his being a King for he was King before he took it Coronation is but a ceremony and his Oath is but at his Coronation the issue of ceremony must not dis-inherit the right heire of all that substance King and Kingdome are like man and wife whose marriages are made in heaven who are betrothed by God himself Now as in the ceremony between man and woman the husband in the presence of God and Angels and al the Congregation promiseth which is as solemnly binding as any Oath that he will live together with her after Gods holy Ordinance in the state of matrimony that he will love and cherish her maintain and keep her and forsaking all other keep himself onely unto her Now if he performe all these things he doth well he is both a good husband and a good Christian considering the vow that he hath made but if he doth not live with her according to Gods holy Ordinance nor love nor cherish her as he should nor maintain and keep her as he ought Shall it be lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every cause Matt. 19.3 much lesse can it be lawfull for the wife to put away her husband upon every distaste It was God that made them male and female Mat 19.4 and therefore it is fit they should continue together so They twain are but one flesh Matt. 19.5 therefore they cannot be divided God joyned them both together Matt 19.6 therefore no man can put them assunder Now to apply this to the King wedding himself to his People at his Coronation the King solemnly takes his Oath at his Coronation before all the People that he will live together with them according to the Lawes of the Land that he will protect and defend them to the uttermost of his power with all other protestations contained in the said Oath which if he doth perform he doth wel and is both a good man and a good King but if he should not govern them according to the Laws of the Land and if he should not cherish and defend his People shall it be lawfull for this wife to make away this husband God forbid God made him King them Subjects therefore they must continue so like man and wife for better for worse they two are both one the head may not be divided from the body and quae deus conjunxit nemo separet there have been Bils of divorcement given unto these Kingâ— husbands in former times but of those Bils I may say as our blessed Saviour said of the Bils of divorcement which Moses commanded it was propter duritiem cordiâ— Matt. 19.7 Deut. 24.1 for the heardnes of mens hearts and then again this durities cordis never went so far as that the woman might put away her husband but only the husband his wife and that only in the case of Adultery if it had been otherwise it had but a late begining a bad foundation for our Saviour saith Matt. 19.8 In principio autem non erat sic It was not so from the beginning and a hard heart is but a bad foundation for a good Christian to build upon I will conclude this application with words not of my own but of Saint Paul which words are a commandment Neither is it I saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.10 but the Lord that gives you this commandment Let not the wife depart from her husband no if shee be an heretique or which is worse a heathen If the woman hath a husband which believeth not if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him 1 Cor. 7.13 If I would resist my Soveraign in any kind it should be â—or my Religion but when my Religiâ—n tels me that I must not resist him in â—ny case then I think I should but doe â—in doing so like the boasting Jew Ro. â— 13 who boasted of the Law and disâ—onoured God through breaking of that law which he had boasted of What if some did not believe shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect saith Paul Rom. 3.3 God forbid no more can the wickednesse of a King make void Gods Ordinance of our obedience unto him our obedience must look upon Gods command not upon the Kings good behaviour God doth not command things because they are fitting but it is fit that wee should obey because he commands them neither ought we to have respect so much unto the goodnesse as unto the Authority of a King for Kings do not consist in this that they are good but in this that they are Kings for as it is possible for one to be a good man and a bad King so it is often seen that a bad man may be a good King and it is an observation here at home that the best Laws have been made by the worst of Kings It is an observation that divers Kingdomes have long continued in peace and happinesse under bad Lawes and worse Governours Well observed when unwarrantable attempts to better both and inconsiderable courses to mend all hath brought all to ruine and confusion He that sets a Kingdome in combustion to advance his own opinion and preferre his private judgement doth but set his house on sire to roast his egges God makes Kings of severall conditions sometimes he gives a King whose wisdome and reach in Government is like Sauls head and shoulders higher then all the People And then when we have wise Kings and learned Judges Psalm 2.10 we shall be surâ— to have all those Breakers of their bonds asunder and those casters away of their cords from them verse 5. to be bruised with a Rod of Iron and broken in pieces like a Potters vessell verse 9. Sometimes God will send us a little child sometimes a Child in years otherwhile a Child in understanding which of both it be Vae regno saith Sol. cui puer dominabitur woe to the Kingdome over
God that must not be touch'd it was not all the seed of Abraham who have this noli me tangere about them but it was Abraham Isaac and Jacob for whose sake God reproved Kings as they are plainly nominated in the same Psalm and none else if there be mention made of the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abraham who were else mentioned and though we cannot comprehend these three under the notion of nominall Kings yet we may be pleased to consider them as reall Princes Principi Dei es inter nos as it was said to Abraham thou art a mighty Prince amongst us so Kings may be reproved for their sakes they may be Kings too and yet the Lords Anointed for whose sake Kings were reproved for we doe not dispute about the name but the thing now wheresoever you find this word nolite tangere you shall find this word saying going before it which of necessity must have some reference to some other place of Scripture to which it must allude and in reference to which it must be spoken for the word saying makes it rather a question of some Authour then the Psalmist's own this allusion you may easily perceive Gen. 26.11 where it is set down how that God touched the heart of Abimelech King of the Philistims in the behalfe of Isaac one of the three named in the Psalm so that King Abimelech charged all his people saying He that toucheth this man shall surely die So Abimelech and King Herod were both reproved for Abrahams sake Gen. 12.10 and to what place of Scripture can this nolite tangere be more aptly applied then to this where we find the same words reiterated or what clearer testimony can be given of the Scriptures alluding to this saying Touch not mine Anointed then to Gen. 16.29 where totidem verbis it is said to Abimelech in the â—ehalfe of Isaac we have not touched thee â—â—ou blessed of the Lord what difference â—etween these words and touch not mine Anointed Besides the Marginall notes of all our Bibles directs us to Abraham Isaac and Jacob as to the Anointed of the Lord â—nd as the Princes of Gods people which must not be touch'd and for whose sakes Kings were so much reproved the word King in the text doth not exclude â—hose who were Princes but it only includes those Princes who were called Kings and were reproved for their sakes who were Kings themselves re though not nomine so that all the ground that will be gained hereby will be that one Prince was reproved for another though not called Kings To conclude as no Christians ever interpreted this place of Scripture but of Kings and Princes untill Jesuites and Puritans undertook that it is lawfull to murder Kings So no English Author ever interpreted it otherwise till within this 7 or 8 years when Presbyters and Independents began to put this doctrine in execution and if the former of these two would wash their hands in innocency as relating to this last unparallel'd act of Regicide let them remember CHARLS the Proto-Martyr of Gods Church and People His own words in his Book of Meditations wherein He tels them how vaine is the shift of their pleading exemption from that aspersion to grant Commission for shooting of bullets of Iron and Lead in his face and preserving Him in a Parenthesis of words CHAP. XI Objection REhoboam hearkened unto young men which gave him evil councell and would not hearken unto his sages which gave him good advice but answered the people roughly wherefore they renounced the right they had in David and the inheritance they had in the son of Jesse fled to their Tents and Crowned Jeroboam King Ergo we may doe the like upon the like occasion hahaving a president from the word of God and warrantable because God said This thing was from the Lord 1 Kings 13.8 Answer All this proves only that such a thing was don not that it was well don for if it be a sufficient proof to prove out of Scripture that such a thing was don and thereupon conclude that therefore we may do the like then this is as good an argument as the best Judas betraid Christ therefore it is lawfull for a servant to betray his Lord and Master first the Scripture blames him in a most patheticall climax 1 Kings 11.26 Jeroboam the son of Nebat the servant of Solomon whose mothers name was Zeruah even he lifted up his hand against the King shewing how he had desperately run through all those obligations and ties that were upon him 2ly he al his adherents are called Rebels for their paines not only by Abijah his enemy but also by the holy Ghost who is enemy to none who are not Gods enemies 2 Chron. 10.19 And Israel Rebelled against the house of David unto this day his adherents were termed in Scripture â—aine men and sons of Belial they were punished with a destruction of five hundred thousand of them which was one hundred thousand more then there were true subjects for the slaughter the Scripture saith God smote Abraham verse 5. If it be objected that the thing could not but be well done because God saith 1 Kings 14. I exalted thee from among the people and made thee Prince over my people Israel and rent the Kingdom from the house of David and gave it thee then it could not but be well done of Rehoboam by the same reason to answer the people as he did for it is written that Rehoboam hearkened not unto the people for the â—ause was from God that he might performe the saying which he spake by Abijah unto Jeroboam the son of Nebaâ— 1 Kings 12.15 both were passive and neither of them could resist the will of God but these places of Scripture are often times mistaken and misapplied and interpreted either by those who are not well acquainted with the nature of Scripture language or else by those who wilfully and wickedly laid hold of such a meaning as the Scripture may seeme to give them leave for all these and the like places of Scripture we must noâ— take as Gods beneplacence or approbation but only for his permission for â—therwise we should make a mad piece â—f worke of it for God said 1 Sam. 12. â—1 I will raise up evil against thee out of thine 〈◊〉 house and I will take thy wives before â—â—ine eyes and give them to thy neighbour â—nd he shall lie with them in the sight of the â—â—n doth this justifie Absolon for lying with his fathers wives and concubines â—n the sight of all Israel Is there any euil â—hat I have not done it saith the Lord therefore did the Citizens do well to do evill because the Lord said I did it God did it that is to say he caused it to be done as the evill of punishment not as the tolleration of evill so this thing was from the Lord that is to say the Lord suffered such a thing to
ground of his quarrell with the Bishop who also was their Prince when in his own person he acts the part of both Now we will see how these kind of â—reatures have plaid the masters of mis-â—ule among our Princes here at home King James in his discourse at Hampton Court tels us how the Presbyterians â—ecame Lords Paramount in his Kingdome of Scotland and how they used his Mother the Queen of Scots viz. Knoxâ—nd Buchanon and the rest of that gauge came unto Mary Queen of Scots and told â—er that by right no Pope nor Potenâ—ante whatsoever had any superiority over her in her own Dominions either â—n cases Civill or Eccesiasticall but that â—hee her self was Supreme in both and constituted by God as the only nursing mother of his Church within her Dominion and therefore conjured her to look about her and not to let the Pope of Rome or any of his agents to have any thing to do within her territories and to have care of Christ Evangil as â—hee would answer it at the dreadfull day of judgement shee gives them her â—ar and at last her authority they make use of it in the first place to the pulling down of the Bishops and exalted themselves in their roome when the Queen look'd for an absolute Supremacy behold all the Supremacy that these men would alow her was not so much as to have one private Chappell for her self nor one Priest whereby shee might serve God according to her own conscience shee finding her self so much deceived labours to recall her authority they kept her to it shee takes up Armes they oppose her fight her beaâ— her out of her Kingdome shee flies into England they follow her with invectives thrust jealousies into the Queen of Englands bosome concerning her shee is imprisoned and after a long imprisonment put to death King James having related this passage in the forementioned discourse unto Dr Renolds and Knewstubs and the rest turnes unto the Bishops and closes his discourse with this animadversion wherefore my Lords I thanke you for my Supremacy for if I were to receive it from these men I know what would become of my Supremacy the shining light of the Gospel and the burning zeal of the Ministers thereof may fitly be compared to fire which if it be not in every roome confind to on hearth and limited to one tunnell that may convey out of this so comfortable and necessary a blessing all that may be destructive and offensive in it up toward the highest â—egion but is suffered like wild-fire to â—un up and down the house it will soon â—urne all to flames and high combustiâ—ns so the government of the soul â—eemes to be of so transcendent nature â—o what the government of the body â—nd goods is that if it be not overtopt with superintendency or Episcopacy â—nd so disimbogued into the Supreme â—uthority this comfortable heat if limited as it turnes to our greatest benefit so neglected and boundlesse soon converts its self into a suddaine destruâ—tion and ruine If you will hear how these men dealt with King James her Son and Father to Charls the First you shall find it in his Basilicon Doron Crebrae adversus me in tribunitiis Conscionibus Callumniae spargebantur non quod crimen aliquod designassem sed quia Rex eram quod omni crimine pejus habebatur are these men good subjects did they not convene him diverse times before them school him Chatechize him like a school-boy did he not protest unto his Son Henry that he mislik'd their proud and haughty carriage ever since he was ten years of age did he not say that Monarchy and Presbytery agreed like God and the Devil and have we not found it so if we consider the behaviour of our new madâ— Presbyterians in England to Charls the Frist his Son O but the Presbyterianâ— had no hand in it they pray'd and preach'd and writ against it fasted and pray'd for a diversion of all such intentions but I pray who took the Scepteâ— out of his hand in taking away the Militia of which it was an emblem that should have defended him was it not the Presbyterian who cast down his Throne by taking away his Negative voice was it not the Presbyterians who took off his Crown the fountaine of Honour from off his Head by denying those honour on whom he had confer'd it without them was it not the Presbyterian who took away his Supremacy singnified by the sacred unction wherewith he was anointed in not allowing him the Liberty of his owne Conscience in the point of Episcopacy and Church government was it not the Presbyterian who would not â—reat a minuite with their King before they had made him acknowledge himself guilty as they say of all the bloud that had been spilt throughout his Dominions was it not the Presbyterian who notwithstanding all the Concessions on his â—â—rt that could be granted even to the â—ery grating his Princely Conscience â—hen he bid them aske flesh from off his â—ones and he would not deny it them â—it might have been a benefit unto his â—eople prayed that he might keep his â—onscience whole it was the Queen â—â—gient of all good mens actions and â—e hoped there were none would force â—is Queen before him in his House as â—â—asuerus said to Haman Voted not saâ—isfactory so long untill the Indepenâ—ent Army came from Edenbâ—rough and â—urpriz'd and murdred him was it not the Presbyterians he that said the Presâ—yterians held him down by the haire while the Independents cut off his Head said true enough they murdred him as â— King before ever they murdred him as a man for what may the Independent say to the Presbyter if yuo 'l take off his authority we 'l take of his Head if you 'l make him no King we 'l make him no body if you 'l make him a man of bloud we 'l use him accordingly therefore at your doors O Persybterian hypocrites do I lay his Innocent bloud it is but like the rest of your actions committed by your Ancestors to former Princes all along One thing I pray you well observeâ— There was never any reformed Church in Christendome but when they shook off their Bishops they made their apologies to all the Christian world how they were necessitated to alter that antient and best form of government of the Church by Bishopâ— in regard that they could not be drawn off from their obedience and dependance on the Pope of Rome and if possible they would retaine that laudable government as most convenient but never were there any reformers in the world but ours that ever held Episcopacy to be unlawfull and Anti-christian before and will you know the reason which is only this the Bishops what they receive they lay down at his Majesties feet as acknowledging him to be Supreme in all cases when they would have him to be Supreme in no case as Buch. de jure Regini plainly tels us that Princes are