authority O pious Rebels So far are our Laws of England from allowing Subjects to take up arms against the King or to condemn execute him that it is high treason for any one or all of his Subjects but to imagine the Kings death which the wisdom and Religion of our Realm hath from age to age so much hated and abhorred that an offender therin by the Laws of the Land shall be hanged and cut down alive his bowels shall be cut off and burned in his sight his head shall be severed from his body his quarters shall be divided asunder and disposed at the Kings pleasure and made food for the birds of the air or the beasts of the Field and his wife and children shall be thrust out of his house and livings his seed and blood shall be corrupted his Lands and goods shall be confiscated and as by the Statute of 29 H. 6.1 It is ordained of the Traytor John Cade hee shall be called a false Traytor for ever But the Traytors against Charls the Martyr have prevented this punishment most due to them by the greatnesse of their villanies Yet though they are got out of the reach of Justice and trample our Laws and King under their feet let them remember that God is above Earth and will give them their reward if not in this world yet in the world to come The aforesaid Statute of 25 Ed. 3. as you may read in Pulton de pace Regis Regni fo 108. doth confirm it to be high treason for any person to compasse or imagine the death of our Soveraign Lord the King the Queen c. by which words it doth approve what a great regard and reverend respect the Common Law hath alwayes had to the person of the King which it hath endeavoured religiously and carefully to preserve as a thing consecrated by Almighty God and by him ordained to be the head health and wealth of the Kingdom and therefore it hath ingrafted a deep and settled fear in the hearts of all sorts of Subjects to offer violence or force unto it under the pain of High Treason insomuch as if he that â—s Non Compos Mentis do kill or attempt to kill the King it shall be adjudged in him High Treason though if he do commit petit Treason homicide or larceny it shall not be imputed unto him as Felony for that he knew not what he did neither had he malice prepensed not a felonious intent And this law doth not only restrain all persons from laying violent hands upon the person of the King but also by prevention it doth inhibit them so much as to compasse or imagine or to devise or think in their hearts to cut off by violent or untimely death the life of the King Queen c. for the only compassing or imagination without bringing it to effect is High Treason because that compassing and imagination doth proceed from false and traiterous hearts and out of cruel bloudy and murdering minds Thus you see with what reverence our Lawes do adore his sacred Majesty our King detesting nothing more than the violence or dammage offered to him yet forsooth the Rebels affirm they killed the King by the Common Law and why by the Common Law what because the Commons made it surely that is all the reason for there is no law under the Heavens which warranteth Subjects to kill their King but all lawes both humane and divine command the contrary Many are the publick oaths as you may read in Mr. Prynne's Concordia discors protestations leagues covenants which all English Subjects especially Judges Justices Sheriffs Mayors Ministers Lawyers Graduates Members of the House of Commons and all publick officers whatsoever by the Lawes and Statutes of the land have formerly taken to their lawful hereditary Kings their heirs and successors to bind their souls and consciences to bear constant faith allegiance obedience and dutiful subjection to them and to defend their Persons Crowns and just royal Prerogatives with their lives members and fortunes against all attempts conspiracies and innovations whatsoever But since all those sacred oaths have been trayterously violated and broken by the Rebels against Charles the Martyr I will only present you with the effect of the Oath of Allegiance which every one is to take when he is of the age of twelve years and this oath was instituted in the time of King Calvin's Case fo 7. Co. Lit. fo 68.172 You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Soverain Lord King Charles and his heirs and truth and faith shall bear of life and member and terrene honour and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or dammage intended unto him that you shall not defend So help you Almighty God The substance and effect of this oath as it is resolved and proved in Calvin's case is due to the King by the law of Nature and is called Ligeantia naturalis being an incident inseparable to every Subject for so soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Soveraign and therefore the King is called in his Statutes our natural liege Lord and his people natural liege Subjects But Ligeantia legalis is so called because the Municipal Laws of this Realm have prescribed the order and form of it None can deny but that obedience is due from the Son to the Father by the Law of Nature yet may the Municipal Laws of the Realm prescribe formality and order to it not diminishing the substance So likewise may they to the Allegiance due by nature to the King Thus have you seen how the English Trayterous Rebells contrary to all the Laws of God the Law of Nature the Law of Nations the Laws of our Realm and against the foundation of Christian Religion have by an unheard of example most wickedly murthered as a common Thief and vile vassal of the people condemned their gracious King whose name from the very beginning of the world hath ever been esteemed amongst all Nations great and holy whom the Prophets and Apostles nay our Saviour himself and all the Primitive Christians both with their lives death examples and Doctrine have taught and commanded us to reverence and pray for and to be subject to not violently to resist him though he violently persecute us whom God himself in his old and new Testament hath declared to be constituted by him and reign by him not by the People and particularly whom our fore-Fathers of this Realm of England have always accounted sacred and ever found by experience Kingly Government to be most glorious and profitable for them yet these forty or fifty Tyrannical Rebels contrary even to common sense and feeling upholding themselves by Force and Arms Treason and Usurpation do sit and Vote Kingship dangerous and burthensom to the good people of this Common-wealth when in the mean time out Merchants turn Bankrupts our Tradesmen break Food groweth
will he banish from his Realm But suppose that he should eat of the forbidden fruit do what was right in his own eyes and evil in the Lords To whom shall this great Steward give an account shall he give his account to the Inferiour servants of his Lord That would be an audacious and wicked attempt of them A high prejudice to the Lord and a great dishonesty and disgrace to the Steward in his Office For the Lord would be extremely offended The Inferiour servants severely punished for exacting an account which only belonged to their Lord And the Steward would be dismissed of his Stewardship as dishonest and unfaithful Therefore every just and pious Steward will dye before he will so much wrong his Lord and Master of his right as to give an account of his Stewardship to them to whom it doth not belong and although they are so unjust and dishonest to require it yet he will give them his life before he will be corrupted For he is accountable to none but unto the Lord who will require it as his due For the Lord called unto Adam and said unto him where art thou And he said I heard thy voyce in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid my self But what is this all Must the King give an account only of himself No he must answer for his subjects too Of him to whom much is given much shall be required For Adam said The woman whom thou gavest to be with me she gave me of the tree and I did eat Where note that the subject may cause the Soveraign to sin and the sin of the subjects often times pulleth down judgments on their Soveraigns head aswell as on their own and the King must be their Accomptant Eve first sinned But Adam must be first called in question Yet he was a King and therefore none must call him in question but God who only was his Superiour But when Adam fell did not his Soveraignty fall with him No Adam was a King after his fall and had his Soveraignty confirmed to him by God for ever For Gen. 3.16 And thy desire shall be to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee so that Adam did still retain his superiority But was not this Soveraignty personally fixed in Adam and so dyed with him No God did declare it transmissible from Adam to the first born For Gen. 4.7 God said to Cain the first born speaking of his younger brother Abel sub te erit appetitus ejus dominaberis ei Unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him So that from Adam it doth appear 1. That Kings are ordained by God not by the people 2. That God gave them their regal power 3. That that power is above the laws 4. That they have no Superiours but God And 5. That God only hath power to call them in question and punish them if they offend For Crimine ab uno Disce omnes From that one great offence which Adam the King committed and was not accountable neither did he account with any but with God leaâ—n all that the King cannot commit any offence so great as to give his Subjects just cause to call him in question or to take up arms and with force to resist him Which I shall prove with luculent authorities and pregnant examples both human and divine I think it is received by all for a truth That the King is Pater Patriae the Father of his Country Maritus Reip the Husband of the Commonwealth and Dominus Subditorum the Master of his Subjects I remember that Roffensis de potestate Papae asketh this Question An potestas Adami in filios ac nepotes adeoque omnes ubique homines ex consensu filiorum ac nepotum dependet an à solo Deo ac natura profluit Whether the power of Adam over his Children and nephews and so over all the men in the world doth depend on their consent or whether it doth not flow from God and Nature I have already made it clear that his power doth not depend on their will and consent but is instituted by God and Nature If so then I ask this Question Whether the sons of Adam have any power either from God or Nature violently to resist and oppose the King their Father Which Question I conceive may be as truly resolved that they have not For first there is nothing so fairly written and so deeply impress'd in Nature as Obedience You may see it in every creature every brute beast will teach you the obedience due from children to their parents and the soveraignty of the parents over their children Vipers indeed will destroy their parent but it is a monster in Nature and therefore not imitable by any but those of a viperous brood Behold the natural love and obedience of the pious Storks towards their parents who feed their feeble and impotent parents when they are old as they fed them being young And lest Obedience should lose a reward the Aeâ—yptians so esteemed this bird that they laid a great penalty on him that should kill it You may read of many beasts and fowls that with bloudie strokes will beat away and banish their young from them But so great is the natural love allegeance of their young that as if it had been high-treason for them so to doe they will not so much as resist their parents but flie from them teaching every subject his true obedience towards his Soveraign and that in this case only when the Soveraign would unjustly punish him it is most honourable and the greatest argument of a valiant man to run away Would not it be a most hideous and detestable thing for a son to murder his own Father Nay suppose the Father should draw his sword at his Son would that be a just ground for him presently to run in upon his Father and stab him surely I think every mans nature will teach him to speak better things than these and to be so far from approving it that he will account nothing more horrible and worthie of so much punishment Pater quamvis legum contemptor quamvis impius sit tamen pater est Patri vel matri nullo modo contradicere debemus dicant faciant quae volunt saith Origenes We ought to contradict our Father or Mother by no means let them say or doe what they please for be they good or bad they are our Father and Mother But behold a greater than thy Father is here It is thy King whose Sword commandeth fear whose Crown importeth honour whose Scepter requireth obedience whose Throne exacteth reverence whose Person is sacred his Function divine and his Royal Charge calleth for all our praiers O quam te mâ—morem virgo namoue haud tibi vultus Mortalis nec vox hominem sonat O Dea certe O King with what terms of honour shall I style thee Is it lawfull to call thee a Man The
Floud or the Confusion of Babel yet it is as true that there is a Regal right continuing in the Father-hood even untill this day and that the next heir to Adam ought to have the Supreme power as it is true that the father hath right ought to govern his Children or as that it is a rule Qui prior est tempore potior est jure He that is eldest by Law ought to rule For God told Cain the eldest brother Gen. 4.7 That unto him should be the desire of his youngest brother and that he should rule over him which continueth a Law until this present time But though we know not which is the next heir to Adam in any convention of the people which is the fault of our ignorance not of nature yet since God hath told us in his Holy Word that he only disposeth of Crowns as he pleaseth Therefore they can not go out of the right line so long as he directeth and guideth them though the right in the Father-hood lye dormant Every King is a Father therefore every subject must be obedient to his fatherly power otherwise he will break Gods Commandment viz. Honour thy Father c. God only had right to give and take away Crowns and thereby to adopt subjects into the allegiance of another fatherly power Therefore no less false than execrable is their opinion who promulge that all men whereby nature born free from subjection and that they had no Governour but by the peoples assent and chusing when it is most apparent that God gave the Supreme power to Adam and that all men since were born subjects by nature Our Saviour was subject to his Parents will Luke 2.51 And doubtless those men are free from all goodness too who profess themselves born free from subjection to their Prince or their Ancestors before them But suppose all men were born free by nature and that the people originally by nature had power to chuse a King after what manner or how is it possible for them to make their choice it must be by the joint consent of every reasonable creature Male and Female Old and Young Babes and Antient men Sick and Lame all at one time Nemine Contradicente for if natural freedom be granted to all the Major part of the whole people in the world or the Major part of the people of a Kingdom have no power to binde the lesser part to their consent and agreement Every one being as free by birth and having as much power as any other For the Major part never bindeth but where men at first either agree to be so bound or where a higher power so commands Now there being no higher power than Nature but God himself where neither Nature nor God appoints the Major part to binde The consent of the Major part is not binding to any but only to themselves who consent Those who are born afterwards according to the tenets of natural freedome are not bound by their consent because by nature they are likewise born free But if it should be true as it is false that men are all free born by nature yet have not they power jointly or severally to alter the Law of nature Now by the Law of nature no man hath power to take away his own life How then can the people or any single man give that power to another which he hath not in himself If he killeth himself for any offence he is a murtherer Therefore if any man claiming no other power but what he hath from the people do take away the life of any man though in a way of publique justice he is a murtherer and the man so killed is a felo de se Because the man slain had no power to kill himself and so consequently he which killed him had no power neither For Nemo potest plus juris in alium transferre quam ipse habet No man can transfer to another a greater right and power than he himself hath Tyrants are either with a Tittle or without a Tittle Their qualities Kings have their power immediatly from God not from the People proved in Adam and by Gods own Word in several Texts of Scripture by the suffrages of the Fathers and other Writers and by the Lords Prayer and Doctrine The several sorts and degrees of power instituted by God and the Commission whereby God gave power to Adam The honour which God hath bestowed on Kings and his special care and owning them How Kings are said to be instituted immediatly by God The Israelites did not sin in desiring a King and his power and praerâ—gative set forth by the Prophet Samuel Saul was chosen for his virtues and was not vitious at his inanguration Proved from Adonijah and Solomon that God only maketh Kings not the People The Arrogance and presumption of the pragmatical People of England in claiming power to make and unmake Kings condemned who will have none Kings but themselves Monarchy the best of Governments LEt us now set upon this Monster a Tyrant who is either cum titulo vel sine titulo with a title or without a title A Tyrant cum titulo or Exercitio is he who being a legal Soveraign ruleth by his depraved will and treading under foot the Laws of God and his Realm enslaveth his free born subjects and useth their goods as his own A Tyrant sine Titulo is he who usurpeth the Soveraignty without the Authority of the Law and subverteth all Rights and Religion making what Laws he pleaseth or else squareth his actions according to the rule of the known Laws For he that hath no Title to the Soveraignty but usurpation is a Tyrant though he live so piously and religiously that to the world he seems a Saint Here I could willingly cast Anchor and stop the progress of my pen from sayling any further into this rough Ocean of Tyranny But when I see the Sword and Scripture so much at variance the one fighting against the other then am I forced to put this question Whether a lawful Soveraign perverting the Laws of God and man and metamorphosed into an absolute Tyrant may by his subjects be called in question and punished at their pleasure The Sword saith he may and proves it by experience The Scripture though not with so much violence yet with more Reason and Religion both saith and proves it that he may not Mulciber in Trojam pro Troja stabat Apollo For the better decision of which question it is first necessary to be known whether the institution of Kings be immediatly from God or whether they be creatures made by the people receiving their power from their subjects and so to be dethroned when they vouchsafe to think convenient For art thou only a stranger in England and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these dayes That there are new Statesmen who have found out a new discovery and hold forth these Sophisms for true doctrin That Royal
judicatur To whom it is lawful to do what he lift without punishment by the people Who is freed from the fetters of the Law who giveth Laws and receiveth Laws from none who judgeth all men and himself is judged by none and this is the true definition of a king warranted in holy writ by the example of all kings by the Prophets by the Apostles by the holy writings of multitudes of men by the Fathers of the Church by the true Orthodox Clergy by the Law of Nations and of Nature In the beginning saith Iustin Populus nullis legibus tenebatur sed arbitria regum pro legibus erant The people were kept under by no Laws but the will of their kings was the only Law they had which I find verifyed in the first king which God made Adam Whose power was absolute for in his Commission he had from God there is no limitation Gen. 1.28 Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it And have dominion over the fish of the Sea and over the fowl of the Air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth Here is no command that he shall not make a Law without the consent of a Parliament that he shall receive so much tribute of his subjects and no more the king is not here prohibited to have a negative voyce or tyed up with any Law of his subjects He is to give Laws not to receive them what his will leadeth him to that may he do which is all included in this word Dominare have Dominion But go a little further and see his Majesty upon his royal Throne where with reverence be it spoken you may behold the Almighty doing more obedience to the King than his vassals do in these our dayes Gen. 2.19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them And whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the name thereof The Lord God formed every living thing but Adam must give them names The Lord God brought them to him but it was but to see what he would call them For whatsoever Adam was pleased to call every living creature that was the name thereof So that hitherto there was no Law but the will of Adam the King to govern every living creature Ad libitum Regis sonuit sententia legis What Adam pleased to command that was presently obeyed But let us make a further progress and explicate the Soveraignty of king Adam For as yet there was not found an help meet for him But the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he took aâ— rib out of his side whereof he made a woman and brought her unto the man And Adam said this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man The Lord God made the woman but it was of one of Adams bones and Adam must give her a name Nay Adam must make a Law concerning her For Therefore shall a man leave his Father and his Mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh which Law continueth still and shall do for ever For there shall be marrying and giving in marriage until the end of the World Therefore Justine doth prove a true Historian when he saith in the beginning Arbitria Regum pro legibus erant There was no Law but the kings will for you may read of many kings before Moses his time as of nine in one chapter Gen. 14.1 2. But Moses was the first that ever writ Laws or invented letters as we can finde then what Laws could those nine Kings use and all the Kings from Adam until Moses but their own wills And God gave Moses the power of Governing the people before he gave the law and Moses administred Justice to every one according to his pleasure so did Joshua and Saul and all the Kings after them and if the King governeth with the law which is derived from him which is most certainly true then undoubtedly the King is above the law For propter quod unumquodque tale ipsum magis tale that by which any thing is made such or such is in it self much more such or such But the King maketh the Law Ergo the King is much more above the Law The Laws are the reigns with which the King governeth and guideth the people how can the Charioter rule his horses if he hath not the free use and power over the reigns and by what means can the King rule and direct his people if he hath not the supreme power over the Laws with which he is to guide them not they him If the Law be equal in power with the king then why doth the king pardon those whom the Law condemneth alter the old Laws and make new Laws For par in parem non habet imperium every boy can tell that a man hath no power to command his equal but suppose the Laws should be equal or above the king who should put these Laws in execution The people cannot because as I have already shewen they are Inferior to the king and Contra rationem est contraque naturam superiorem ab inferiore judicari saith Barclay It is against reason and nature that the Superiour should be judged by the Inferiour Therefore though nothing can be so true and plain but that subtle Sophisters by Sinister and false interpretations and glosses will make it obscure yet it is an inviolable truth that the king is above the Law and therefore Rex non potest facere injuriam the king can do no wrong for ubi non est Lex ibi non est transgressio quo ad mundum where there is no Law there is no transgression as to the world Quisquis summum obtinet imperium sive is sit unus Rex sive pauci nobiles vel ipse populus universus supra omnes leges sunt Ratio haec est quod nemo sibi feret legem sed subditis suis se legibus nemo adstringit saith Saravia de Imperand autor li. 2. c. 3. Every Governour let the Government be Monarchie Aristocracie or Democracie is above all the Laws for no man can impose Laws on himself but on his subjects and no man can bind himself to keep his own Laws because as Barclay saith Quod neque suis legibus teneri possit cum nemo sit seipso superior nemo a seipso cogipossit Leges a superiore tantum sciscantur denturque inferioribus No man can be bound by the Laws he makes himself because no man is above himself neither can any man be compelled of himself and Laws are only made by superiours and given to inferiours Cujus est instituere ejus est abrogare He which maketh any Law may abrogate it when he pleaseth It is not possible for any Government to be
are called of God to be Kings as his Vicegerents they have power to look to and have a care of the Church that the word be preached and the Sacraments administred by fit persons and in a right manner else how should Kings be Nursing Fathers to the Church had they not a Fatherly power over it Therefore many Acts of Parliament in several Kings Reigns and the whole Current of Law Books resolve and affirm the King to be head and have Supreme Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical causes In the first year of Edward the sixth a Statute was made That all Authority and Jurisdiction both Spiritual and Temporal is derived from the King So in the Reign of Edward the Confessor was this Law ca. 17. The King who is the Vicar of the highest King is ordained to this end that he should Govern and Rule the Kingdom and People of the Land and above all things the Holy Church and that he defend the same from wrong doers and destroy and root out workers of mischief But since Reverend Coke in the fifth part of his Reports De jure Regis Ecclesiastico hath with luculent examples and impregnable lawes made it so clear that no man can gainsay it that the King ought and the Kings of England ever since before the Conquest until the Reign of Queen Elizabeth at which time he writ have had the supreme power and jurisdiction in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes I referre you to his Book only reciting part of his conclusion viz. Thus hath it appeared as well by the antient Common Lawes of this Realm by the Resolutions and Judgments of the Judges and Sages of the Lawes of England in all succession of ages as by authority of many Acts of Parliament antient and of later times that the Kingdome of England is an absolute Monarchy and that the King is the only supreme Governour as well over Ecclesiastical persons and in Ecclesiastical causes as temporal within this Realm And in another places fo 8. he saith And therefore by the antient Lawes of this Realm this Kingdome of England is an absolute Empire and Monarchy consisting of one head which is the King and of a body politick compact and compounded of many and almost infinite several and yet well agreeing Members All which the law divideth into two several parts that is to say the Clergy and the Laity both of them next and immediately under God subject and obedient to the head Also the Kingly head of this politick body is instituted and furnished with plenary and intire power prerogative and jurisdiction to render justice and right to every part and member of this body of what estate degree or calling soever in all causes Ecclesiastical or Temporal otherwise he should not be a head of the whole body Now he that looketh upon these Authorities and yet saith that the King is not above both Parliament and people nor hath soveraign power over them will likewise look upon the sun in the Heavens and yet say that it is not above but below the earth and when he is in the midst of the sea say that there are no waters in the world If then the King hath the supreme power over Parliament and people as most certainly he hath how then could the Parliament or people much lesse sixty of them question or judge their King For no man can deny but that the greater power ought to correct and judge the lesser not the lesser the greater How could they did I say Why vi armis by violence and injury not by law So may I go and murther the King of Spain or the King of France and then tell them that their people have the supreme power over them The case is all one only these Rebels murthered their natural Father and King to whom nature and the Lawes of God and man had made them subjects but I should murther a forein King whom I ought not to touch he being the Lords annointed It is easie to prove the Soveraignty of the Kings of England by their Stiles unlesse our anti-monarchical Statists will say they nick named themselves Their several stiles since the Conquest you may see in the first part of my Lord Coke's Institutes Fo. 27. Therefore I will not trouble you with a recital of them as for the styles before the Conquest take one for all which you may find in the Preface of Co. li. 4. and in Davis his Irish reports Fo. 60. In a Charter made by Edgar one of the Saxon Monarchs of England before the Danish Kings viz. Altitonantis dei largiflua clementia qui est Rex Regum dominus dominantium Ego Edgarus Anglorum Basileus omniumque rerum Insularum Oceani quae Britanniam circumjacent cunctarumque Nationum quae infra eam includuntuâ— Imperator et dominus Gratias ago ipsi Deo omnipotenti Regi meo qui meum imperium sic ampliavit exaltavit super Regum patrum meorum Qui licet Monarchiam totius Angliae adepti sunt a tempore Athelstani qui primus Regum Anglorum omnes Nationes quae Britanniam incolunt sibi armis subegit nullus tamen eorum ultra fines imperium suum dilatare agressus est mihi tamen concessit propitia Divinitas cum Anglorum imperio omnia regna Insularum Oceani cum suis ferocissimis regibus usque Norvegiam maximamque partem Hiberniae cum sua nobilissima Civitate de Dublina Anglorum regno subjugare quos etiam omnes meis imperiis colla subdare dei favente gratia coegi By which you may observe the first Conquest of Ireland and that the Kings of England are Emperours and Monarchs in their Kingdom constituted only by God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords not by the people And so did many other Kings of England stile themselves as for example Etheldredus totius Albionis Dei Providentia Imperator and Edredus Magnae Britanniae Monarcha c. But that our preposterous Commonwealths men might make themselves most ridiculous as well as impious in all things they would argue the King out of his Militia and have him to be their Defender yet they would take away his sword from him O Childish foppery What a Warriour without arms a General without souldiers why not aâ— well a Speaker without a mouth such Drollerâ— was never heard of in the world until the Infatuation of these infandous Republicans hatcht it Nay but there shall be a King over us cryed the Israelites that we also might be like all the Nations and that our King may judge us and go out before us and fight our battels 1 Sam. 8.19 Anâ— what should he fight without the Militia should the King be over the people judge them and go out before them to battel yet ought the people tâ— have power to array arm and muster the souldierâ— at their pleasure ought they to appoint whaâ— Officers and Commanders they thought fit surely no For he will saith Samuel verse 12.