Children of Belial, OR, THE rebels. Wherein these three Questions are discussed: I. Whether God or the People be the Author and Efficient of monarchy? II. Whether the King be Singulis major, but Universis minor? III. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to bear arms, or to Contribute for the maintenance of a war against the King? MAT. 12.30. he that is not with me, is against me, &c. Printed in the year, 1647. TO HIS honoured FRIENDS, Sr. G. C. AND HIS virtuous Lady, A. Sir, Madam, YOu have been informed of my Loyalty, and believe it; I have felt your Charity, and acknowledge it: That the World may say, I died a loyal Subject, and a thankful Servant, I have left these lines as a testimony of both, from him that was while he lived, Sir, Madam, Your beadsman, T. S. Some few faults have escaped, which the Reader is entreated thus to Correct. Pag. 13. line 26. read sine. ibid. l. 36. r. distinction. p. 14. ult. r. ipse. p. 15. l. 3. r. Regali. p. 16. marg. Pars for Ps. 1 Sam. 10.27. The children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? and they despised him, and brought him no presents. THis latter, and therefore this wicked age, hath broached three seditious questions: the questions were heretofore brewed by Bellarmine and his fellow Jesuits, by Buchanan and his fellow schismatics: and this age, this Jesuitical, schismatical age hath practically broached, what they but speculatively brewed. Viz. 1. Whether God or the people be the author and efficient of Monarchy? Questions. 2. Whether the King be only Singulis major, but Universis minor. 3. Whether it be lawful for Subjects to bear arms, or to contribute for the maintenance of a war against the King? And this age, this wicked age, resolves these questions just to the people's humour; and saith, 1. The people are the author of monarchy: 2. The people represented, are greater than the King. Resol. Populi. 3. It is lawful to contribute for the maintenance of a War, or to bear arms against the King. But to make good that old adagy, Quod vulgo placet, sapienti displicet, the Prophet Samuel, in this Chapter, in this verse, resolves clean contrary, and tells us, 1. That God, and not the people, is the efficient of monarchy: So he says, v, 24. See ye him, Resol. S●muelis. Quem populus elegit? at no hand; but Quem elêgit Deus, see ye him whom the Lord hath chosen: The King hath his power, not precario, by the people's courtesy, but Dei gratiâ. 2. That the King is greater than the people, not only in piecemeal and particulars, but also in gross, and general; so he says again; v. 23 24. He, the King, stood amongst the people and was higher than all the people by the shoulder and upwards; not only in stature, but also in power, and therefore all the people shouted and said, God save the King. 3. That contributions to maintain a war, or to war against the King, are unlawful, utterly unlawful, because the King is to be assisted in his wars by the people; And they are here marked Carbone, for children of Belial, who brought him no Presents: certainly they are ten times more the children of Belial, who bring Presents against him. Indeed this Text within its own verge resolves these three questions. 1. In the description of rebels; they are children of Belial. 2. In the expostulation, the saucy expostulation of rebels, How shall this man save us? Division. 3. In the condition of rebels, the condition positive, and the condition privative; positively, they despise the King, and privatively, they bring him no Presents. 1. The result of the whole falls into these particulars. ●. They account the King but as one of themselves, and as one chosen by themselves; and therefore they said, How shall this man save us? And therefore they are called the children of Belial: Had they looked a little higher, and observed how God chose him out of them, they would then have believed, that God by him would save them; because God chose him out of them for this very end and purpose, to be the King over them, and protector of them. 2. They looked upon themselves Aggregation, and in conjunction, and thought themselves in that bulk and collection greater than him; and therefore they despised him; and therefore they are called the children of Belial: Had they looked upon him as the Head of that Body, whereof themselves were our members, they would have confessed, that neither some of the principal Members representatively, nor all the Members collectively had been worthy of comparison with him; and that he, the King, had been greater, not only than any one asunder, but then All together also. 3. They looked upon their enemies, how strong they were, and upon themselves, how numerous, how copious, and therefore how well able to defend themselves; and therefore they brought him no presents, and therefore they are called the children of Belial; and therefore not only by symbolical, but also by rational Divinity: It is unlawful to contribute for the maintenance of a war, or to bear arms against the King. I begin with the first, the description of Rebels, in the first words; the children of Belial said: And first, Ps. 1. what is here meant by Belial? Why, as Christ tacitly tells his Disciples there are many kinds of devils, when he says expressly, this kind goes not out, but by fasting and prayer; so the Prophet Samuel here tells us, that there are divers names of devils, Mat. 17.21. or the devil hath divers names, and this of Belial is not the best. V. G. Sometimes he is called Daemon, for his knowledge; sometimes Satan, for his malice; sometimes Beelzebub, for his filth; sometimes Diabolus, for his traduction and accusing of man; sometimes as here, Belial, for his rebellion, Belial, what? and casting off the yoke of obedience, for contending against him, as much as in him lies, by whom he should, and shall at last be controlled; for Belial signifies Absque jugo, or Absque Dominio, a masterless Imp, and it is not unworthy your remembrance; That wheresoever people are so called, children of Belial; disobedience and rebellion are the ground of it. But what then? Did the devil beget these men in my Text? Children of Belial, how? or else, how and why are they called the children of Belial? No, the devil cannot beget children; neither, 1. As the common cause; for so Sol in concurrence with man generat hominem; nor, 2. As the proper cause, either a sirvile genere, or a simile specie; nor, 3. As the material cause; for he is not spermatical. They are then here called the children of Belial, not by any natural or virtous generation, but by a vicious and sinful imitation: As Christ told the Jews, that they were of their Father the devil, Job. 8.44. because they sought to kill him, and belie him, and gives the reason of it, for the devil is a murderer from the beginning, and the Father of lies: So here the Prophet Samuel calls these men the children of Belial, i. e. of the devil, because they by his example and tentation sought to shake and cast off the yoke of obedience: And therefore they barely apprehended the King, as a creature of their own, and chosen by themselves, or of faction amongst themselves, saying, How shall this man save us? And this brings me to the examination of the first question, viz. ● a. ● ae. whether God or the People be the Author of monarchy? To this is is answered by the children of Belial for the people; saying, How shall this man, This man, and no more, save us? But by the Prophet of God, it is resolved for God, saying, see you him whom the Lord hath chosen? Act. 4.19. And now, Beloved judge yourselves, whether it is fitter to obey God or man, as the Apostles spoke in another case? Whether it be fitter to believe the children of Belial, who from their Father have learned to speak nothing but lies, or the Prophet of God, who from the spirit of God can speak nothing but truth? If I thought there were any children of Belial here, I would for their sakes examine this question to the full, either to call them by repentance to acknowledge the truth, and do their duty, or that they might with more security, and less excuse wander to hell: If there be any such devil in Samuel's mantle here, any complyer here with the children of Belial, elsewhere, let him at least know the truth, and if he will be blessed, let him do it too. The very work of creation speaks this truth; God made many Angels, he made but one man, and yet he could, if he would have made as many Legions of men upon earth, as of Angels in Heaven: He could, but he would not; would you know the reason of it? Truly I dare not pry into this Cabinet; such secrets of State are not for the Commons; yet according to my evidence, I shall dare show you the outside of it; thus: God found not heaven itself free from mutiny amongst a multitude of inhabitants, and therefore to take off all colour of Rebellion, and to prevent all pretence to disobedience against sovereignty, he made but one man; one, and no more; hereby teaching us, That the power of a King over his Subjects is as natural as the power of a Father over his children; that the power and person of a Monarch is from God, and not from the people, and so to be acknowledged by the people: Sic fuit ab initio. And this is acknowledged by Aristotle, who was led only by the light of nature, and saw as far into the laws of nature, as ever man did: At first, saith he, regal Power belonged to the Father of the family, and he gives this reason for it; Pol. l. 1. c. 8. because in the infancy of the world, the Fathers were so grandevous & lived so long, that each Father begot such a numerous Posterity as might people a whole Country: And therefore Regal power over them as Subjects was no less from God, then paternal power over them as children. Will you hear another Naturalist, little inferior to this, say the same? Principio rerum, Gentium nationumque, Imperium penes Reges erat; The Rule of Nations, of all Nations, was in the hands of Kings from the beginning, and the people had no more right to choose their Kings, than they had to choose their fathers, because the Kingly Right appertained to the Father of the Family: Sic fuit ab initio. And so it hath continued ever since, and in all places. Look else upon Moses the first Catholic and visible King of the Jews; Exod. 2.12 14. Act. 7.25. (the Sanhedrim was but his great counsel) He was fully persuaded that God had appointed him to be Israel's deliverer: And when God called him, he alone called him, not with the people, not to the people, for their approbation by vote, but to Pharaoh for the execution of his own justice: And all this to tell the people, that yet they had nothing to do in the appointment of a King: That God himself and he only, he inclusively, and he exclusively, is the efficient of monarchy. When afterward God left them to themselves, and gave them no Kings, and that monster the Multitude took the power into their own hands; O, what hideous births did they produce? Licentiousness instead of the Subjects liberty, Rapes, and Rapines, Judg. 19.8.10. instead of the Subjects propriety; enough to affright people from affecting any kind of government whereof God himself is not the immediate efficient: And he is not so the immediate efficient of any kind of government as of Monarchy. Well, afterwards when God in mercy looked upon their misery, and gave them a little refreshment in the succession of two Judges, Eli & Samuel, & they were weary of this government, 1 Sam. 8.4. and would needs have a King to govern them, as the Nations had: Why, even than God did not give them leave to choose one themselves; but he himself appointed one over them, even Saul, of whom Samuel says, see ye him whom the Lord hath chosen? It is still to tell them, that God is the Author of monarchy, and not the people. And was it not so afterwards? What else means Solomon's Per me Reges regnant? Pro. 8.15. That's for the Jews, you'll say; It is true, and it is as true of the Nations too; what else means Isaiah's Vnctus Cyrus? isaiah. 45 1. Dan. ●. 25. Daniel speaks them both: The most high ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will; mark it, God gives it, not the people, and God gives it to whomsoever he will, not to whomsoever the people will. Thus it was in the days of Moses and the Prophets; and was it not thus in the days of Christ and his Apostles? Joh. 19. 1●. Rom. 11.1. Why else did Christ acknowledge Pilate's power to be de super? Why else doth St. Paul say, the Powers that be, are ordained of God. Object. 1 Reg 12. 2●0 That Objection of Jeroboam, that he was a King of the people's making, doth not soil this truth a jot, for Jeroboam confesses himself to be but an usurper, saying, This people will return to their own Lord, Answ. if they do sacrifice in Jerusalem: We have good hope, if ever our old Religion be set up, this new rebellion must go down: And it concerns you, Gentlemen, to look to it to the establishing of our Religion, reply. Nor does that reply from Saint Peter any more help this lame cause; 1 Pet. 2.13. where he calls monarchy the Ordinance of man. For Saint Peter speaks of the final cause of monarchy: Resol. It is for the good of man; and Saint Paul speaks of the efficient cause; it is ordained of God. Pareus himself, Pareus confesseth as much, saying, The very word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ad Deum primum authorem nos revocat; this word Creation, shows plainly that God is the author of monarchy. Thus it was in the days of Moses and the Prophets; thus it was in the days of Christ and his Apostles; and hath it not been so in the days of Christians ever since. Look else upon Athanasius for the Primitive Fathers; Ad Antioch. q 55. De reg. pa. l. 1 c 6. the power of Kings is of God: look else upon Aquinas, for the schoolmen, All Kings are God's ordinance, even wicked Kings to punish the people's sins: look else upon Luther, for the modern Writers; ye ought not to reject the Prince whom God hath set over you: It was his answer to the assembly of the German rebels. Thus it was in the days of Moses and the Prophets; thus it was in the days of Christ and his Apostles; thus it was in the days of Athanasius and the Primitive Fathers; thus it was in the days of Aquinas, and the subtle schoolmen; thus it was in the days of Luther, and our honest Grandfathers. But hath it been so with the Kings of England? look else upon his Rights, look else upon his power. 1. His right to the crown is by birth, not by election: he hath it not by the people's votes, but by God's blessing, and hereditary succession: King Charles that now is, and long, and long may he so be, was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland, so soon as ever King James was dead, by the Law of birthright; and so had been, though he had not yet received the ceremony of Coronation: Henry 6. Speed. l. 9 c. 26. was not crowned until the ninth year of his reign, and yet he was King the eight preceding years. 2. His power is universal, in all Causes, over all Persons, both ecclesiastical and civil: So is his Power Military; he may, Polyd. Virg. l. 11. the people may not, (de jura) proclaim war, and establish peace: So is his power curial; no Court, not the Court of Parliament can meet, Smith. C. W. l. 2. c 4. but by the King's authority; yea, the Court of Parliament itself was at first devised, framed, and instituted by the Kings of England! O fortunatos Anglos bona si sua nô rint: So is his power official; He bestows all offices, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord chamberlain, and all the rest acknowledge the King their only Patron and Donor; and lastly such is his power origenall, and that runs thus, Carolus Dei gratia, not, Carolus electione Populi. fol. 34. ab. The King hath under him freemen and slaves, says Bracton, but he is under none but God: And it may be said of our King in his ne'er-royal, as it was said of Solomon, That he than sits, not in solium Populi, as if they made him King; but in solium Domini, because he is, what he is, Charles, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, &c. And may Almighty God with his grace, by which he made him King, continue him in his kingdoms, and restore him to his power, that he may punish all those men of Belial, who say, they made him King, and He shall no longer reign over them; yea, O God, let all those Children of Belial taste of thy mercy, and the King's justice, who say, how shall this man save us? And so deny his Authority to come from thee, and despise him because they conceive him less than the whole Body, though greater their particular Members. Amen. It is my second part, and I am now to discuss it; I called it the positive condition of rebels: Ps. 2. They despised him: And first what is the meaning of these words, they despised him; why the meaning of this consists in these three branches. Eccles. 10.20. 1. They did malè cogitare, and so came within the compass of Solomon's prohibition, curse not the King in thy thought. A thought of despising the King is treason, as well as a word, and a word as well as an action: So it is said of the intentions of Bigthan and Texesh, Traitors they were, and yet they never came to an insurrexerunt, or any act of treason, but only to a voluerunt, a bare intention, they sought, or, Est. 2.21.23. they thought to lay hands upon King Abasuerus, and for this very thought they were hanged: And as the Law of God, so the Law of this kingdom construes a bare purpose against the King, a despising thought of the King, to be treason, and makes it deadly my prayer therefore is: Convert them O God; if they will not be converted, confound them O God, as many as have evil will against my Lord the King, and do malè cogitare, despise him in their thoughts. 2. They did malè dicere, saying, How shall this man save us? and so came within the compass of Moses his prohibition, thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people: Deut. 27.16. A word against the King is treason, as well as a thought, or action; greater treason than the thought, and lesser than the action: And they that now word it against the King, if they be of the Clergy, they are of Balaam's ordination; because they curse whom God hath blessed: And he was killed with the sword; Num. 23. If they be of the laity, they are of Shemeies' condition, because they revile whom God hath anointed; 2. Sam. 16.5. and he was put to a violent and shameful death: And at this time by the Law of this kingdom, there stands one Pym indicted and arraigned for saying, He would, if he could, imbrue his hands in the blood of King Charles; my prayer again is: Convert them, O God, convert them, If they will not be converted, confound them O God, and let them perish, as many as speak evil of my Lord the King, and do malè dicere, despise him with their tongues. 3. They did malè facere; for they brought him no presents, and so came within the compass of King David's prohibition, 1. Sam. thou shalt not stretch forth thy hand against the Lord's Anointed; (And drawing our hand back from the Lord's Anointed is equivalent) I know King David there speaks by an interrogative, quis, who can? But I know withal that that interrogation, quis, is a most triumphant Negative, and says nullus, no man can, unless he will bring guilt upon his own soul: Absalon did against his Father the King, and was both hanged and stabbed for it; Robert late Earl of Essex did, and was beheaded for it, and how many in the same conspiracy were hanged, you may read in that story; my prayer again is: Convert them, O God, Convert them, and return them to their duty of Loyalty to thine anointed; if they will not be converted, confound them O God, as many as lift up their hands against, or withdraw their hands from my Lord the King. You see what is meant by these words, they despised him; will you now see why they despised him? Why, it was because they looked on him as a single man, how shall this man save us? Happily they thought him greater than any one of themselves in particular; but they thought themselves in a collective or representative Body greater than the King; and this brings me to my 2a. 2ae. and the unfolding of my second question, which is, 2a. 2ae. or Quest. 2. Whether the King be Singulis major, but Vniversis minor? But of the first branch of this question, I shall not need to speak; for that the King is singulis major, no man denies; or if any, only such as are more Beasts than men, and live more by sense then reason, or rather, have lost both their sense and reason. My inquiry therefore is upon the other branch of this question: viz. Whether the King be universis minor, less than the body representative? This is the thing in agitation in this wicked age, and affirmed by wicked men, the children of Belial. But how truly they affirm it, you may see: First, by their sophistry: and secondly, by our verity grounded upon Scripture, Fathers, Reason, and the Law of England. 1. They tell us, the fountain or cause of the King is greater than the King; but the people representative is the cause and fountain of the King. But with their favour, that axiom upon which they build, Quicquid efficit tale est magis tale, though it be always true, Ante effectum productum, yet it is often false, Post effectus productionem: V: G: The fountain was once more water than the river, the spark was once more fire than all the wood in the chimney, but it is not so. And indeed, the assumption is never true, for the people is not the fountain or efficient of the King, God is; I have showed it before, and thither I refer you. And yet, were it true, why, yet it would not follow, that therefore the people are greater than the King: For that axiom is true only in those agents, in whom the quality by which they work is inherent, and from whom it cannot be separated: But the people (if they had power to make the King) have by that Act divested themselves of that power; and the King is not under them, but over them; and not only over them, Sigillatim, but also Conjunction; else the body representative need not petition him; for they might command him, they need not else call him their sovereign, but their fellow-subject, they need not else write, To the Kings most excellent majesty; but, To our very loving friend: But you know the usual style of the body representative; to the Kings most excellent majesty; We your majesty's most humble subjects in this present Parliament assembled; and this I hope is no compliment, or pro formâ tantum: Sure I am they call God to witness it, and so by their own practice and confession, the King is, not only singulis, but also universis major. 2. And so secondly, the Scripture says as much; for when that Army royal was to join battle against Absalon the general of the Rebels, and his rebel-army; and David the King had appointed his three chiefs over all his cavalry and infantry, Joah, Abishai, and Ittai, and said, 2 Sam. 18.2. he would go forth himself to battle, No said the people, the people represented the great council, the council of war, and the council of State: they all desire him to forbear, and tell him, It is not safe for him to go along with them; and why? What reason have they for it? marry the best reason in the world, salus Populi, salus Regui, both depending upon the safety of the King: If we fly away, they will not care for us, neither if half of us die, will they care for us but now thou art better than 10000 of us: id est, Thou art worth us all, thou art better than us all, thou art over and above us all. Ps. 89.20 And so much says God himself, when speaking of the King, he says, I have exalted one chosen out of the people; mark it, it is unum electum è populo, not a populo; and that one so chosen by God, God hath exalted; and over whom hath God exalted him? over the people sure, or over nobody, and not over this or that part of the people, but over the people indefinitely: i.e. over all the people generally and universally. 1 Pet. 2.13 The New Testament too speaks the same, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. In which words the body collective, and the body representative, are both subordinated to the King: the body collective is the people; and says Saint Peter to them, Submit yourselves, the body representative is the inferior Magistrates, the Peers, Nobles, and Counsellors, call them what you please, the House of peers, and the House of Commons; and says Saint Peter of them, They are governors sent by him, id est, by the King: for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} cannot here relate to any word but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, else there had been an absurdity, and if there were a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, there were an impossibility too, as absurd to suppose one kingdom to have two supremes, as one Firmament to have two suns, and as impossible to grant obedience to two supremes commanding contrary things, as to serve two masters. In a word, the inferior governors are made by the chief, and who is the chief but the King? God only made the King, and the King only makes inferior Magistrates; (for they are sent, or made only by him;) God only can de jure unmake the King, and the King only can de jure unmake the inferior Magistrates; And therefore, they are not coordinate with him, but subordinate to him. If now you believe Samuel the Prophet, or St. Peter the Apostle, or God himself, the King is as well universis, as singulis major: id est, in plain English, Greater than people, or Parliament: viz. where the King and Parliament are distinguished; for the Parliament is sent, or made, or called to be a Parliament by the King. And hath it not been so ever since? Ad Scap. look else upon Tertullian for the Primitive Fathers, We account the Emperor sovereign over all, and acknowledge him subject to God alone: look else upon Aquinas for the schoolmen, 2 a. 2ae. q. 104. ar. 6. if a successive King, or King by inheritance turn Tyrant, recurrendum est ad omnium Regem, Deum, we must have recourse to God alone, because God only hath power over Kings. And says Gregory Turonensis to Childeric that King of France, You may chastise us if we transgress, but if you exceed your limits, who may chastise you? None, no man, no assembly of men, who but God? surely than the King is above all men in the judgement of Divinity. And is he not so in the judgement of reason? why else do we call the Ring Sponsus Regni? and at his Coronation he is wedded to the kingdom with a Ring: Why else do we call the King Caput Regni? not of these or those particular Members, but Regni, of all the members in the kingdom: For all the members in their politic capacity make but one body, and hath one body any more than one head? and hath not everybody a head? else it is a monster, or a carcase: Fortesacut. Nec populus Acephalus corpus vocari meretur; quia ut in naturalibus capite detruncato, Residuum non corpus, sed truncum appellamus; sic in politicis sive capite communitas nullatenus corporatur: And certainly if the King makes the community a body, and the community without the King is not a body, the King is above the community, for the head is above the body. To these two Denominations, I add a third; the King is Oecenomus, or Pater familias: the kingdom is Familia, the King is Dominus, the kingdom Domus, and that criticism is ● truth; Dominus domni praeest, as well in universis, is singulis. Agesilaus foresaw the danger of this Destruction and therefore to a Citizen of Sparta, that desired, an alteration of Government, he returned this answer, That kind of rule which a man disdains in his own house, is very unfit to govern a kingdom by: You disdain that your Wife, Children, Servants, the Representative body of your little kingdom, should carry themselves over you, and command you; it is a graceless family that does so, and they are graceless and rebellious Subjects, that say, They are, or esteem themselves to be above the King. They that say so, speak against reason, for the King is sponsus, and the People sponsa; for the King is Caput, and the people Corpus; for the King is Pater, and the people Filij; for the King is Dominus, and the people servi. They that say so, speak against Divinity: for it hath been the universal opinion of all the Fathers, of all, I bate not one till the year 1300. and odd; that the King is inferior to none but God; and they speak against the letter and sense of the Scripture too, for the Scripture calls such despisers of the King, Children of Belial: And lastly, they speak against the letter and sense of the common laws of England too. l. 2. c. 8. Omnis sub Rege, says Bracton; Parem non habet in Reg●● de Chartis Regiis, & Factis Regum, neo privatae personae, 〈◊〉 Justiciarii debent disputare. Notorium est, says Walsingham; It is beyond all doubt, th●● the Kings of England are of an unbounded preeminence, and ought not to answer before any Judge ecclesiastical or Civil. It was an answer of that Parliament to a Pope's demand, and for such demands our forefathers accounted the Pope to be Antichrist; I wish they had not sent that reason of Antichrist from St. Peter's in Rome to St. Peter's elsewhere; for some wise men do not now stick to say, if this be his badge, Populus is Antichristus; It is an ordinary thing for Antichrist to lie, and I take this for one; for if the King be of an unbounded preeminence, then by no means under the people's girdle. Object. That objection is of no force; Ad tutelam Legis, subdit●rum, ac eorum corporum & honorum Rex erectus est, & hanc potestatem affluxam ipsa habet: Answ. For Fortescue there speaks of a King merely politic, saying, Rex hujusmodi, whereas Regnum Anglia in Dominium Politicum & Regal● prorupit, & in utroque, tam Regalè, quàm politico, populo suo dominatur; The sense of this great Lawyer is, in reference to his power, he is a regal King, & Rex naturalis, and a King by birth; in reference to his duty, he is a politic King, or Rex nationalis, a King by Law; But in both, a King; and therefore universis major in both respects. Nor does that reply from Bracton or Fleta, (for they both have it) do any more harm; Rex sub Lege est, reply. Resol. for howsoever the King be under the Directive Power of the Law, as the Law is the Rule of justice; yet he is above the Corrective Power of the Law, as the Law is the instrument of justice. In a word, the Law declares the Kings Right, the people admit him to the possession of that Right, the counsel advise him in the safest way of governing his people; and so they use all but as instruments and servants to him, and he is above them all. The King is the life, the Head, and Authority of all things that are done in the realm of England, says Sir Thomas Smith in his Common wealth of England. l. 2. c. 4. Summam & supremam potestatem habet in omnes Regni or●●●s; Nec praeter Deum superiorem agnoscit, Elisab. pag 391. Brit. pag. 132. says Master Cambden; and if he be under none but God, he is above all the people, unless they be God. And to all this you have all sworn in the Oath of Allegiance, some of you in the Oath of supremacy, and the late Protestation, viz, To maintain the King's supremacy in all causes, and over all persons, ecclesiastical and civil: A sovereignty than he hath, and you have sworn to maintain it, not only over singular persons, but over all persons, and as you endeavour it, so help you God. But you may justly fear, if now you unswear that, or swear, or do against that which you have so solemnly sworn to do; that God will, not only not help you, but wound you, wound you while you live with the infamy of rebels, and a tormenting conscience, and wound you when you are dead with the eternity of fire, and all the torment of hell. From both which Almighty God deliver you for Jesus Christ his sake: and from both which that you may be delivered, I pray God to give you grace to acknowledge and esteem the King to be universis as well as singulis major; Amen. They that think less of him, do despise him, and are therefore the children of Bellal; And so are they that bring him no presents. Ps. 3. It is my last consideration; I called it the Privative condition of rebels, and children of Belial, they brought him as presents. I need not spend any time in the explication of these words, they are obvious to the thinnest understanding, and they intend thus much; These men, these children of Belial, did not contribute to the maintenance of the King in his wars, they did not aid him, they did not assist him, they aided him not with arms, they assisted him not with money, they withheld his vectigalia from him, they brought him not his customs, his crown-revenues, his Subsidies, and his Pollmonies. I shall therefore spend my ensuing discourse, in resolving that question, which doth even naturally arise from these last words, viz. ●●. 3ae. Whether it be lawful to bear arms, or to contribute for the maintenance of a war against the King? And this Text resolves it negatively, and says, It is not lawful; for they who brought the King no presents, were sons of Belial; and therefore much more are they the sons of Belial, who fight against, or contribute to maintain a fight against the King. And to make this good, I shall take leave, 1. removere, to remove those objections, those grand objections which seem to check this truth. 2. Movere, to commend to you a choice and pregnant place of Scripture, or two, which give the checkmate to those objections: 3. Perpendere, to weigh some speeches of the Fathers, and so make it good by their theory and practice: and 4. Proponere, to lay before your face some of those fearful judgements, which have befallen some men that have borne arms against their Kings, 1. Mediatione non Rebellione: Junius, Borth●ius, Osiander, Willet: non Fustibus, sed precibus: Peter Martyr. 2. Revelatione, non oppositione. 3 Speciali jussu, non lege. 4. A populi tumultu non Regis tyrannide. 5. Verbis, non Gladits; persuasione, non insurrectione: & leprosus fuit. 6. Usurpatrix fuit. as fearful examples for them, who now contribute for the maintenance of such wars. And first, for the objections; I meet but with two that carry any seeming validity with them, many more there are: As 1. The people's rescuing Jonathan from Saul: 2. Elisha's shutting the door, and holding fast the messenger that came from King Joram: 3. Jebues killing that King Joram: 4. Ahikams' defending the Prophet from the tyranny of King Jehoiakim: 5. The withstanding of Uzziah the King by Azariah the Priest: 6. The Deposing of Athaliah the Queen: But they are all frivolous, and want weight, Et eâdem facilitate repelluntur, quâ proponuntur. The first that carries any show with it, as I conceive, is David's taking up arms against King Saul; and hence the rebels argue thus: David the Subject took up arms against Saul the King, and was not rebuked for it, either by Divines, Lawyers, or statesmen; many of his fellow-Subjects took up arms with him, to the number of 600. and very likely, many more contributed to the maintenance of that Army; nor yet were they reprehended by Divinity, Law, or policy: and therefore Subjects may in some cases take up arms, and contribute to the maintenance of a war against their King, (if he be an oppressor of their Properties, Liberties, or Religion.) And to this colourable objection it is answered, the allegation is false, false and absurd both; false, because David was so far from taking up these arms against King Saul, that he continually fled from him, and never fought with him: Object. 1 Sam. ●2. 1.2.24.28. yea, so far from fighting with King Saul he was, that when God had delivered him two several times into his hands, Answ. once at the Edge hill of Hackilah, and once in the wilderness of Eugedi, he durst not himself, nor would he suffer any man else to stretch forth his hand against King Saul, and for this only reason, Because he was the Lord's anointed, false therefore: And absurd too, to imagine that David should raise or entertain 600. 1 Sam. 26.1. men to fight against King Saul, who never went without 3000. men at his heels: Impar congressus, and very unlearnedly is David with his 600. men urged as an example or argument, to justify disloyalty. Nor will that addition help it, viz. That King David was 40000. strong; for he was not so strong till after Saul's death, as appears in the story: 1 Chr. 12.22. But admit it for truth, that David was 40000. strong in the days of Saul, yet this is so far from being an argument to justify Rebellion, or taking up arms against the King, as that it doth altogether condemn it; for notwithstanding so great strength, yet David never pursued Saul, never let fly any murdering arrows, dart, ston●, at or against King Saul, but still fled from him; and to put him out of all such fears and jealousies, he got himself with all his Forces out of his kingdom, and begged a place for his habitation of Achish King of Gath. Let all our rebels follow David in the whole example, and we shall both allow this quotation, and also commend their imitation; yea, and pray they may have so many followers, that there may not be one rebel left to lift up his hand against King Charles the Lord's anointed. Object. 2 The second objection of any colourable strength, is that of Jeroboam; 1 Reg. 12. from whence it is thus argued: Rehoboam the son of Solomon refused to ease the people of their burdens, and therefore the people took up arms, and set up Jeroboam to be King over them; and this was so far from being a sin that the Text says, It was from the Lord; and therefore Subjects may in some cases bear arms against their King. Answ. It was answered, The Scripture here sets down, Rei gesta veritatem, non facti aequitatem; and hereupon says Saint Austin, Quia factum legimus, non ideo faciendum credimus, s●ctando enim exemplum violimus praeceptum, nor can we any more free ourselves from the breach of the fift commandment, if we take up arms against our King upon this example, than we can from the breach of the eight commandment, if we plunder and rob our neighbours upon the example of the Israelites spoiling the Egyptians. True, Jeroboam was King, and that was from the Lord; but by permission only, not appointment; and God in that permission at once punished Solomon's Idolatry, and Rehoboam's folly; but notwithstanding this, that act of the people, in revolting from Rehoboam, was Rebellion, 1 Reg. 12.19. 2 Cro. 10.19. and so called by God himself in two several places, and God punished this Rebellion of theirs so fearfully, that he first gave them up to Idolatry, and afterwards drove them out into Captivity; and this is commonly the reward of rebels: First they turn Idolaters, or what is tantomount; irreligious, (let any one say what Religion the rebels are of) and so are hated by God, and afterwards are made slaves, and so are hated by men; That we may never fall into the one or the other, either Idolatry, or captivity, almighty God keep us from Rebellion. Amen. The Scripture affords not one more colourable example to justify the taking up of Arms against the King, and therefore the rebels of this age borrow one from our own Country. Object. 3 Richard the second was deposed by Parliament, and therefore a King of England may be resisted. I answer it, Infandum scelerate jubet renovare pudorem: Answ. If the rebels were not past all shame, they would never have remembered this Factum, since it is without all Aequum, and to this day remains the blemish of our Nation; and this very act brought such miseries upon this kingdom, that until two Kings, one Prince, ten Dukes, two Marquesses, 21. Earls, 27. Lords. 2. Viscounts, one Lord Prior, one Judge, 139. Knights, 421. Esquires, Gentlemen of a vast number, and 100000. Common people were slain in these civil wars, England never saw happy days; This repetition hath rhetoric enough to stir you up to sorrow, I say no more of it therefore; but, that we may again see peace and happiness in our days, God put a period to them that bear arms against King Charles: Amen. For it is unlawful, as appears. 2. by Scripture, 4 a. 3ae. I will name but two instead of two hundred: The first is that of Solomons, whose precept is, That we keep the King's commandment: Eccles. 8.2.3.4. id est, Whatsoever he commands, so it be not against the word of God: The reason of this precept is double: 1. In regard of conscience, Because of the Oath of God, we have sworn to it, and we have called God to witness to the truth of our intention and endeavour to perform this Oath; and accordingly we may expect God● rewarder, or a revenger: The second reason is, in regard of power, For where the word of a King is there is power: q. d. For a while, the word of a King, like the word of God, may be slighted, but in the end, it will appear a word of power, and shall be suffered with death, Pro. 30.31 where it was not obeyed with duty: For against the King there is no rising up: Nemo qui insurgit, says Junius; Nemo qui insurgat, says Clarius, (I wish he had been a Prophet:) By Solomon's rule, it is unlawful to bear arms against the King. Rom. 13.1.2. And so it is by Saint Paul's rule too, his precept is obedience to the higher powers, not to the naked authority, as Mr. Burrowes would make that man believe, that is given over to believe a lie, but to the person clothed with that power: For if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} may signify power in the abstract, or the power of the Law, without relation to the person that made that Law; yet {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} must of necessity note the person, and the superiority of the person, that hath this power conferred upon him; and such power no person in England hath, but only the King of England: His great counsel may ju● dicere, he only can jus dare; and therefore to him must every English soul be subject; subject actively, licitis, and subject passively, in illicitis; both ways so far subject, as that we may not resist: The reason is, for if we do, we shall receive damnation: the word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and that signifies, not the plundering of the goods at home, not the hanging of the body abroad, but the everlasting damnation of the soul and body in Hell, notwithstanding Mr. Marshal's new Lexicon. If now you believe Solomon, or Saint Paul, (I could add Moses and all the other Prophets, Saint Peter and all the other Apostles) It is not lawful for any man, for any sort of men to bear arms against the King: Yea, therefore every man must assist the King with arms, and contribute to the maintenance of his wars, for they that do not are the children of Belial: The children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? they despised him and brought him no presents. And do not the father's assent to the same? 5 a. 3ae. Apol. 2. ad Ant. Imp. pag. 113. Ad scap. Apol. ad Const. Orat. in Julian. 1. Contr. Auxent. Ep. 31.32.33. In Ps. 114. Why else did Justin Martyr say; For our religion's sake, and preservation of public peace, we Christians, O Emperor, yield you our help and assistance: It was Tertullian's glory, that Christians were never found Albinians, Nigrians, Cassians, or any other sort of traitors: Athanasius professed it not lawful to say or speak otherwise then well of majesty: Nazianzen knew no means lawful to restrain the persecutor, but tears: St. Ambrose knew no other way to resist then with tears: St. Austin commended the Christians for obeying Julian, I could name St. Gregory, Fulgentius, St. Bernard, and many more: For all, hear the Anathema of a full Assembly of Bishops in the council of Toledo, Whosoever shall violate that Oath which he hath taken for the preservation of the King's Majesty; Conc. 5. Canc. 2. whosoever shall attempt to destroy or depose the King, whosoever shall aspire to the regal Throne, Let him be accursed, cast out of the Church, and together with his Complices be condemned with the devil and his angels eternally; let them be all tied in the bond of damnation, who were joined in the society of Sedition. Here now let no man say, That these father's command obedience to good Kings only; for some of those Kings, whom they command to obey, were heretics, some Idolaters, some apostates, some Tyrants, most of them bad enough. Let no man say, the Christians did not resist, because they had not strength and power enough; for Tertullian tells you, In Apol. Ep. l. 7. ep. 1. They had; Cyprian tells you, They had; Saint Gregory the Great tells you, They had; the number of Christians was A principio, from a few years after the Apostles. Nimius & copiosus, both strong and numerous. Let no man say, Christian Religion, and their privileges were not yet established, for they were: Constantine the Great, and his successors established them, and daily added to their Immunities. And now, judge yourselves, Beloved, whether you were better believe the Scriptures, and the Fathers, than some young Teachers, and schismatical Divines crept up but yesterday, and never durst appear in Old England till now; and now they do appear, they dare not dispute verbis, but verberibus, and God first or last will give them their belly full. Certainly if our Brethren were not wilfully blind, they would join with us, and conclude, It is not lawful to bear arms, or contribute to maintain a war against the King: They were children of Belial that brought King Saul no presents; and to Belial they all must (without God's infinite mercy and their own repentance) who now maintain a war, or bear arms against King Charles. 6 a. 3ae. And this is evident, fourthly and lastly, by those fearful punishments and judgements, which God and man from time to time have inflicted upon rebels and traitors, even such as have borne arms, and maintained War against their Kings. Look else upon those intentional rebels, Corah the clergy rebel, Dathan and Abiron the Laie-Rebells; the one by a fire from Heaven is sent into the fire of Hell, the other through the earth fall into the pit of the damned: So Saint Basil. Hom. 9 Look else upon that verbal rebel, Shimei, he is put to an untimely and ignominious death. Look else upon those actual rebels, Achitophel a great politician, Absalon a Favourite of his Fathers, and of the people's affections; the one hangs himself, the other is hanged in a tree: And Sheba for but blowing a seditious Trumpet, for but striking up a rebellious drum hath his head cut-off. See my Beloved, see if ye can find but one, even but one rebel, either in holy, or human Histories that ever escaped unpunished, either by the hand of God, in a troubled and perplexed conscience, or by the hand of man, in an untimely and odious death: Brutus with the same hand and Dagger, he stabbed his King Caesar, he kills himself. That seditious ringleader of the Jews against Adrian the Emperor, who called himself Ben-Chobab, or Filius stellae, Euseb. l. 4. c. 7. is suddenly killed, and ever after scornfully remembered by the name of Ben-C●zba, or the son of a lie. I have heard of a certain Commander, whose name I am not willing to remember, who often wished he might rot, if ever he lift his hand, or drew his Sword against the King; notwithstanding he did both, and God answered his wish, he rotted within, and died. A certain Lord I have likewise heard of, a great ringleader in a Rebellion, yet a great pretender to a Reformation, who in his exercises of Devotion would often desire God; If the cause he took were not right, if the cause he managed were not just, he would take him away suddenly; God heard him, and answered him, for by the shot of a Musket he is killed so suddenly, that he had not so much time, as to say, God be merciful unto me, and so without sign or symptom of repentance died. I need not remember you of Pausanias, Ariobarzanes, Rodolph Duke of Suevia, Catiline of Rome, and many of England. Not one of them all, nor any other that I remember, or have read of, but if he lived, he lived the scorn of honest men, and if he died, he died the shame of his Friends, the mirth of his enemies, and the example of all; God in the shameful and fearful punishments of them, telling us, That to bear arms, or contribute to maintain a war against the King is utterly unlawful: That the people of this kingdom may no longer do it: With the Church I pray, From all Sedition and privy conspiracy, from this present dangerous Rebellion, from all false Doctrine and heresy, from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word and commandment, Good Lord deliver us. Amen. FINIS.