Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	david_n	king_n	solomon_n	11,542	5	9.1098	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58824	Children of Beliall, or, The rebells wherein these three questions are discussed : I. whether God or the people be the author and efficient of monarchie? II. whether the King be singulis major, but universis minor? III. whether it be lawfull for subjects to beare armes or to contribute for the maintenance of a warre against the King?	T. S.; Scott, Thomas, 1580?-1626.; Swadlin, Thomas, 1600-1670.	1647 (1647)	Wing S2082; ESTC R8516	17,999	28

to lay before your face some of those fearefull judgements which have befallen some men that have borne Armes against their Kings as fearefull examples for them who now contribute for the maintenance of such warres And first for the objections I meet but with two that carrie any seeming validitie with them many more there are As 1. The peoples rescuing Jonathan from Saul 2. Elisha's shutting the doore and holding fast the messenger that came from King Joram 3. Jebues killing that King Joram 4. Ahikams defending the Prophet from the tyrany of King Jehoiakim 5. The withstanding of Vzziah the King by Azariah the Priest 6. The Deposing of Athaliah the Queene But they are all frivolous and want weight Et eâdem facilitate repelluntur quâ proponuntur The first that carries any shew with it as I conceive is Davids taking up Armes against King Saul and hence the Rebells argue thus David the Subject tooke up Armes against Saul the King and was not rebuked for it either by Divines Lawyers or States-men many of his fellow-Subjects tooke up armes 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 Pollicie and therefore Subjects may in some cases take up Armes and contribute to the maintenance of a Warre against their King if he be an oppressour 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 farre from taking up these Armes against King Saul that he continually fled from him and never fought with him yea so farre from fighting with King Saul he was that when God had delivered him two several times into his hands once at the Edge hill of Hackilah and once in the wildernesse of Eugedi he durst not himselfe nor would hee suffer any man else to stretch forth his hand against King Saul and for this onely reason Because he was the Lords annointed false therefore And absurd too to imagine that David should raise or entertaine 600. men to fight against King Saul who never went without 3000. men at his heeles Impar congressus and very unlearnedly is David with his 600. men urged as an example or argument to justifie disloyalty Nor will that addition helpe it viz. That King David was 40000. strong for he was not so strong till after Sauls death as appeares in the story But admit it for truth that David was 40000. strong in the dayes of Saul yet this is so farre from being an argument to justifie Rebellion or taking up Armes against the King as that it doth altogether condemne it for notwithstanding so great strength yet David never pursued Saul never let flie any murthering arrowes dart ston● at or against King Saul but still fled from him and to put him out of all such feares and jealousies hee got himselfe with all his Forces out of his Kingdome and begged a place for his habitation of Achish King of Gath. Let all our rebells follow David in the whole example and wee shall both allow this quotation and also commend their imitation yea and pray they may have so many followers that there may not bee one Rebell left to lift up his hand against King Charles the Lords Annointed Object 2 The second objection of any colourable strength is that of Jeroboam from whence it is thus argued Rehoboam the son of Solomon refused to ease the people of their burthens and therefore the people tooke up Armes and set up Jeroboam to be King over them and this was so farre from being a sinne that the Text sayes It was from the Lord and therefore Subjects may in some cases beare Armes against their King It was answered The Scripture here sets downe Rei gesta veritatem non facti aequitatem and hereupon sayes Saint Austin Quia factum legimus non ideo faciendum credimus s●ctando enim exemplum violimus praeceptum nor can wee any more free our selves from the breach of the fift Commandement if wee take up Armes against our King upon this example then wee can from the breach of the eight Commandement if wee plunder and robbe our neighbours upon the example of the Israelites spoyling the Egyptians True Jeroboam was King and that was from the Lord but by permission onely not appointment and God in that permission at once punished Solomons Idolatry and Rehoboams follie but notwithstanding this that act of the people in revolting from Rehoboam was Rebellion and so called by God himselfe in two severall places and God punished this Rebellion of theirs so fearefully that he first gave them up to Idolatry and afterwards drove them out into Captivity and this is commonly the reward of Rebells First they turne Idolaters or what is tantomount irreligious let any one say what Religion the Rebells 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 Captivitie Almightie God keepe us from Rebellion Amen The Scripture affords not one more colourable example to justifie the taking up of Arms against the King and therefore the Rebells of this age borrow one from our owne 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 If the Rebells were not past all shame they would never have remembred this Factum since it is without all Aequum and to this day remaines the blemish of our Nation and this very act brought such miseries upon this Kingdome that untill 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 slaine in these Civill Warres England never saw happy dayes This repetition hath rethorique enough to stirre you up to sorrow I say no more of it therefore but that we may againe see peace and happinesse in our dayes God put a period to them that beare Armes against King Charles Amen For it is unlawfull as appeares 2. by Scripture I will name but two instead of two hundred The first is that of Solomons whose precept is That we keepe the Kings Commandement 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 sworne to it and we have called God to witnesse to the truth of our intention and endeavour to performe 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

Looke else upon Athanasius for the Primitive Fathers the power of Kings is of God looke else upon Aquinas for the Schoolemen All Kings are Gods ordinance even wicked Kings to punish the peoples sinnes looke else upon Luther for the moderne Writers Yee ought not to reject the Prince whom God hath set over you It was his answer to the assembly of the German Rebells Thus it was in the dayes of Moses and the Prophets thus it was in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles thus it was in the dayes of Athanasius and the Primitive Fathers thus it was in the dayes of Aquinas and the subtle Schoolemen thus it was in the dayes of Luther and our honest Grandfathers But hath it beene so with the Kings of England looke else upon his Rights looke else upon his power 1. His right to the Crowne is by birth not by election he hath it not by the peoples votes but by Gods 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 soone as ever King James was dead by the Law of Birth-right and so had beene though he had not yet received the ceremonie of Coronation Henry 6. was not crowned untill the ninth yeare of his Raigne and yet he was King the eight preceding yeares 2. His power is universall in all Causes over all Persons both Ecclesiasticall and Civill So is his Power Military he may the people may not de jura proclaime war and establish peace So is his power curiall no Court not the Court of Parliament can meet but by the Kings authority yea the Court of Parliament it selfe was at first devised framed and instituted by the Kings of England O fortunatos Anglos bona si sua nô rint So is his power officiall He bestowes all offices the Lord Keeper the Lord Treasurer the Lord Chamberlaine 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 The King hath under him free-men and slaves saies Bracton but he is under none but God And it may be said of our King in his Chaire-Royall as it was said of Solomon That he then 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 Kingdomes 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 raigne over them yea O God let all those Children of Belial taste of thy mercy and the Kings 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 lesse then the whole Body though greater their particular Members Amen It is my second part and I am now to discusse it I called it the positive condition of Rebells 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 1. They did malè cogitare and so came within the compasse of Solomons 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 voluerūt a bare intention they sought or 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 Kingdome 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 bee converted confound them O God as many as have evill 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 compasse of Moses his prohibition thou shalt not speake evill of the Ruler of thy people A word against the King is treason as well as a thought or action greater treason then the thought and lesser then the action And they that now word it against the King if they be of the Clergy they are of Balaams ordination because they curse whom God hath blessed And he was killed with the sword If they be of the Laietie they are of Shemeies condition because they revile whom God hath anointed and he was put to a violent and shamefull death And at this time by the Law of this Kingdome there stands one Pym endited and arraigned for saying He would if he could embrue his hands in the bloud of King Charles my prayer againe is Convert them O God convert them If they will not be converted confound them O God and let them perish as many as speake evill of my Lord the King and doe malè dicere despise him with their tongues 3. They did malè facere for they brought him no presents and so came within the compasse of King Davids prohibition thou shalt not stretch forth thy hand against the Lords Anointed And drawing our hand back from the Lords Anointed is equivalent I know King David there speakes by an interrogative quis who can But I know withall that that interrogation quis is a most tryumphant Negative and saies nullus no man can unlesse he will bring guilt upon his owne soule Absolon did against his Father the King and was both hanged and stabbed for it Robert late Earle of Essex did and was beheaded for it and how many in the same conspiracy were hanged you may reade in that story my prayer againe is Convert them O God Convert them and returne them to their duety of Loyalty to thine Annointed if they will not be converted confound them O God as many as lift up their hands against or withdraw their hands frō 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 then any one of themselves in particular but they thought themselves in a collective or representative Body greater then the King and this brings me to my 2a 2ae and the unfolding of my second question which is Whether the King be Singulis major but Vniversis minor But of the first branch of this question I shall not neede to speake for that the King

e. of the Divell 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 owne 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. whether God or the People be the Author of Monarchie 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 And now Beloved judge your selves whether it is fitter to obey God or man as the Apostles spake in another case Whether it be fitter to believe the children of Belial who from their Father have learnt to speake nothing but lies or the Prophet of God who from the spirit of God can speake 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 doe their duty or that they might with more security and lesse excuse wander to hell If there be any such Divell in Samuels 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 doe it too The very worke 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 upō earth as of Angels in Heaven He could but he would not would you know the reason of it Truely I dare not prie into this Cabinet such secrets of State are not for the Commons yet according to my evidence I shall dare shew you the outside of it thus God found not heaven it selfe free from mutinie amongst a multitude of inhabitants and therefore to take off all colour of Rebellion and to prevent all pretence to disobedience against Soveraignty he made but one man one and no more hereby teaching us That the power of a King over his Subjects is as naturall 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 Lawes of nature as ever man did At first saith he Regall Power belonged to the Father of the Familie and he gives this reason for it because in the infancie 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 therfore Regal power over them as Subjects was no lesse from God then Paternall power over them as children Will you heare another Naturalist little inferiour 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 chuse their Kings then they had to chuse 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 Looke else upon Moses the first Catholick and visible King of the Jewes the Sanhedrim was but his great Counsell He was fully perswaded that God had appointed him to be Israels 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 Pharoh for the execution of his owne justice And all this to tell the people that yet they had nothing to doe in the appointment of a King That God himselfe and he only he inclusively and he exclusively is the efficient of Monarchie When afterward God left them to themselves and gave them no Kings and that monster the Multitude took the power into their owne hands O what hideous births did they produce Licentiousnesse instead of the Subjects Libertie Rapes and Rapines instead of the Subjects propriety enough to affright people from affecting any kinde of government whereof God himselfe is not the immediate efficient And he is not so the immediate efficient of any kinde 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 and would needes have a King to governe them as the Nations had Why even then God did not give them leave to chuse one themselves but he himselfe appointed one over them even Saul of whom Samuel saies see yee him whom the Lord hath chosen It is still to tell them that God is the Author of Monarchie and not the people And was it not so afterwards What else meanes Solomons Per me Reges regnant That 's for the Jewes you le say It is true and it is as true of the Nations too what else meanes Isaiah's Vnctus Cyrus Daniel speakes them both The most high ruleth in the Kingdome of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will marke 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 daies of Moses and the Prophets and was it not thus in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles Why else did Christ acknowledge Pilates power to be de super Why else doth St. Paul say the Powers that bee are ordained of God That Objection of Jeroboam that he was a King of the peoples making doth not soile this truth a jot for Jeroboam confesses himselfe to be but an usurper saying This people will returne to their owne Lord if they doe sacrifice in Jerusalem We have good hope if ever our old Religion be set up this new rebellion must goe downe And it concernes you Gentlemen to looke to it to the establishing of our Religion Nor does that reply from Saint Peter any more helpe this lame cause where he calls Monarchie the Ordinance of man For Saint Peter speakes of the finall cause of Monarchie It is for the good of man and Saint Paul speakes of the efficient cause it is ordained of God Pareus himselfe 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 shewes plainely that God is the author of Monarchie Thus it was in the dayes of Moses and the Prophets thus it was in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles and hath it not been so in the dayes of Christians ever since