A SERMON PREACHED IN THE CITY OF LONDON By a Lover of Truth. Touching the Power of a KING, and proving out of the Word of GOD, that the Authority of a King is only from GOD and not of Man.  ECCL. 8.4. 
Where the word of a King is there is power, and who may say unto him, what dost thou.  
London Printed 1643.   
Eccles. 8.4. 
Where the word of a King is there is power, And who may say unto him what dost thou.  
BEfore I shall adventure to apply this Text (for to expound it is needless) to such persons both in Town and Country who make it their only Religion to but prate rebellious questions concerning the privileges and actions of Kings; I were best be assured I can prove my Text to be the express Word of God, or else those people who question Kings will be sure to question me.  
There is but one that ever questioned this Preacher, and if Tertullia's rule be true Quicunque est unus est haereticus, we must rather assent to the general tradition of antiquity: by the words you will know that one to be Martin Luther, he saith this book is like a man on horseback without boots or spurs, never keeping a certain pace: but you all know the driving of that man was like jehu, he drove furiously both against Church and Kings. Every spirit that moved not Luther pace, be it the spirit of Solomon the wisest prince in the world, yea although that spirit be a fresh inspired by God's spirit, yet Cessator est & ego: calcaribus but of the two rather think Luthors tongue wanted a bridle we therefore in the fear of God and authority of his holy Church will acknowledge the spirit and power of God to be in this book, and in this Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and will say unto our King in the words of the Psalm Ride on we wish thee good luck in the name of the Lord.  

Where the word of a King, etc.  
IT is well we find in Scripture terminis terminentibus, or else we might have lost him. Ego dixi dij estis, there might be some evasions hence, there is mention of Judges and under-Magistrates in the Land Psalm 82.6. they might assume this unquestioned power and question those whom we call Kings. Saint Paul he names some in authority, but the Pope may come in for his supremacy. In the latter time there are calvin's, Magistratus, Populares, Beza's, superiores potestates, Brutus, junius optimates regni, Daneus ordines regni, Buchanus publica administrationis participes. Althasius, Ephori, Paraus inferiores potestates, so many names as head of the beast in the Apocalip. But here we have Melecke a King, be not subject to subjects or inferior Magistrates, but subjecti estote regi tanquam supereminenti, 1 Pet. 2.13.  
Whence and what Kings are, are doctrines I think suitable both to this Text and these times, their original is from God a good beginning. Per me reges regnant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint chrysostom. The ancient form of salutation used by the Bishop of Rome was In eo per quem reges regnant, then was it not his own holiness Rex regum is written upon Christ own thigh Apoc. 19.16. and Melchisedeck his own first type and King was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without father or Mother. King's are not the offspring of man but the generation of God, Ego dixi Dij estis. God help Kings if people undertake to make them, if they may turn God's verse, to nos diximus Dij estis; if they may change Christ's words, from thou shouldest have no power over me unless it were given thee from above, to, thou shouldst have no power over me unless it were granted thee de subter, from beneath. No all Kings and Kingdoms are Gods. Cujus jussu nascunter homines, ejus jussu Constituuntur Principes, Iraen: Ind suis potestas unde spiritus. Tert. Even all their ornaments and imperial ensigns are from God. Diadomae regis in manu dei, Esay 62. His their Crown, Tuposuisti, Psalm 21. He puts it on. The Emperor's stamp on their Coins was a hand coming forth out of the Clouds holding a Crown, putting it on their heads. His is their Sceptre, Virga dei in manibus ejus, His their Throne, Reges in solely coll●cat in perpetuum, saith job. He fastens them in it for ever; His also their anointing, Touch not mine Anointed, I have anointed David my servant, anointed with oil for supremacy and continuance in his Throne, not uncti. as Priests, but Christi Domini, saith the Bishop of Winchester thirty three times, so styled in the Old Testament, and once in the New. Their manner of anointing also was divers from the Priests. They were anointed on the forehead, Kings on the head saith Erotius in his annotations to Cassenders consultations, in a word saith Saint August. they are uncti ante unctionem, before we can touch them. v. e. decreto.  
Kings whether good or bad they are from God, Per me Reges regnant was spoken when there was but one good King upon the face of the earth Solomon. Haec dicit Dominus Cyro uncto meo. He a Persian a Heathen. It repent God of what? that he had made Saul King. Ego dedi vobis in ira mea regem, Hos. 13.11. Angry I was when I gave you, I gave him through, and there in that honour he must remains though he become Onus Populi, an heavy burden upon the neck of all his subjects. Nebuchadnezar who slew and kept alive whom he pleased, I gave him, His Majesty, Dan. 9 I have raised up Pharaoh and placed him in his Throne, to make my power known on him who had deserved it, that is one sense whatsoever is the other. And the Holy Ghost in Scripture styles not only David and Solomon Kings, but takes in the rest: Hiram, and Pharaoh, and Hadad, and where the Scripture doth not distinguish neither may we, be their religion or manners what please them, by God they are made, and may not be marred by the people— In nature every thing is dissolved by the same means it came together, in Law institution, and destitution belong to one: in Divinity also the Prophet in one and the same verse saith, Ego dedi vobis regem, in the former, and in one breath, abstuli eum, in the latter, Dominus dedit & Dominus abstulit, and then, and not till then, the people to say benedictum sit nomen dei. And well it is that God hath placed them so near himself, post Deum primus secundum Deum proximi, Tert. Humani Ioves Plant: the subject than may not come so near him as Nathan, to tell him tu es homo without nathan's Commission, but tu es Rex, tu es Deus Terra, a God on earth, so near and so one are Kings with God, that the accusation of Naboth, whereby the story he spoke nothing of God, but of the King, they bring in the verdict. Naboth, Maledixi: Deo & Regi, as if he could not but blaspheme God that spoke ill of his King, though of Ahab Nequissimus regum. They are much mistaken who think that God was offended with the Jews for choosing royal government in opposition to the judicial or the Shawhedrim established by God under Moses, for Royal government hath been most ancient and universal in the world, in the Law of nature, before the Ta●les. Saint Chrisostome saith therefore, Eve was taken out of man, not out of the earth, that mankind might acknowledge one head, one Superior, one King, and Sir Wal. Raleigh in his second book of the Hist. of the world, Royal Government from Paternal, which indeed are or aught to be both in one effect, and so we read of Abraham the Patrarch is termed a Prince, Genesis 23.6. And David the KING is named a Patriarch, let me speak boldly to you of David the Patriarch: jus regum comes from, jus paternum, both have one commandment, Honour thy Father, as God alone rules the whole world, and as the Sun gives light to all creatures, so the people of one Land do most naturally yield obedience to one head, one King. All Nations were first governed by this form, Assyrians, Gresians, Egyptians, jews, Percians, Scythians, Turks, Tartars, English, French, Spaniards, Poles, Danes, and in the judges; Neither doth sacred Scripture make mention of other Rulers than Kings. He that will know more in so clear a case, may if he please read Plato, Herodotus, Zen●phon, Saint Cyprian, Saint Jerome. Sovereignty in one person, is most natural, most reasonable, most honourable, most necessary, most divine; So that God was not angry at the choice of the kind of government, but that he thereby was cast forth from being King of the jews, whom he in the place of a King had governed for above three hundred and fifty years, for neither Moses nor the Sawhedrim nor any Judge in Israel had in themselves, jus imperatorium the Right of a King, but only jus hortatorium & punitivum, if they transgressed the written Law of God. God only was their King, who feign would still (besides the general protection of the world) have ruled as an earthly King among the rest, and a pattern to them: but they would no longer live by faith and expectation of his wont direction in government and deliverance, but rather to be as the Nations round about them, they chose a man and refused the living GOD, He is ejected from his immediate Royalty. This the ground of God's displeasure at the jews for choosing them a KING. Ancient and universal hath been the government of the world by Kings. Saint Ierom● in one of his Epistles, saith that two Governors in a Commonwealth are like Esau and jacob, two Princes in the womb of Rebecca so they in one Kingdom, rend and tear in pieces: Rome would not endure two brothers, In navi unus guberrator in Ecclesia unus Episcopus, in Domo unus Dominus, in exercitu unum signum, in imperio unus imperator. The only way to recover and preserve unity and peace among us, is one King. This for the Original and antiquity of Kings whence they are and when.  
Now secondly, what they are, which is best known by that whereby they are formaliter, or finaliter tales, their power: Where the Word of a King is, there is power, etc. Solomon the wisest of men as well as Kings, Proverbs 8.15. placeth Kings before the Creation of the world, better not to be at all then under no Government, which is none without power, and that power if to any purpose must be such, as with which no earthly power may contest, the owner of it, is evermore Alkum one against whom there ought to be no rising, nor any rebellion at all.  
Darius' his three servants in Esdras wrote their wise sentences.  
1. Forte est vinum.  
2. Fortis est Rex.  
3. Fortiores surt mulieres; sed supra omnia est veritas. I am somewhat afeard it was a Prophecy, they are indeed at this day, stronger than our Darius. Their fond pharasaical, and seditious religions are as ridiculous and as changeable as their fashions and attires, their ungrounded zeals, their nourishing and feeding of the vulgar and rebellious of the Clergy, those illiterate talkers in the Pulpit will, nisi supra omnia sit veritas, if the God of truth do not speedily offend, be stronger than either King or Church David although a man of valour and piety, yet complains he that the sons of Zervia were to hard for him. But our Kings and Church may both complain of the daughters of this Land. That they are and will be to hard for us, nisi supra omnia veritas, unless God support the integrity of our King, and the sincerity of the Protestant Religion. A more pregnant place for the power of Kings is in Wisdom 26 2. speaking of the extreme vengeance which God will bring upon the heads of evil Kings at the last day, he proves the certainty thereof by an argument which will seem very strange in these rebellious days: Quoniam Dominus non vevebitur faciem cujusque, unto you O Kings do I speak, he is not afraid of the persons of Kings, he dares call them to account: A very vain idle argument to prove his unmastered deity, and power in that he is not afraid of Kings. Who is afraid of them? Doth God indeed say, Ego dixi Dij estis? We can take up the next verse and be even with him, he shall fall when we please) like one of the Princes. No such great matter of fear is the person or power of a King now a days, when every poor ignorant peasant, or shop-man can define, confine, and pinch up the prerogative of the King, when the vulgar Clergy, those Gibeanites, not fit to draw water for learned men, can prick and gird the person of the King for the space of three or four hours. When every petty but insolent Town can neglect, if not contemn his presence when be vouchsafes to come and see us. So that if God will prove his security to us, he must quit the old argument of fear due unto Kings, from all but himself, and fetch one suitable to our late religions and governments in Church and Commonwealth; As that he is not afraid of the Pope's holiness, or of a presbysteriall discipline, or a popular discipline. Thus Scripture and reason the arguments of the wise must be turned to and fro, to follow the unconstant humour of this present world. But we in fear of God, and honour of his King, will lay the ground of our allegiance fast, and such as whereupon we may build up a piece of obedience that may procure us a Crown of immortality at the last day, by Saint Gregory's rule, arcessemus Rivum fidelitatis de fonte pietatis, not only from customs and fundamental laws in a private land, who are most-what both imperfect and obscure, but from the plain and easy Text of Gods own Law, which as it is sufficient for any man's salvation, without the blasphemous expositions of these times. So in the point of obedience unto Kings (a main principle in Christian doctrine) without which no man shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven) it is very plentiful and plain among the rest, this is one, Where the word of a King is, there is power.   

The word of a King.  
IT is as the roaring of a Lion. It is Divalis jussio, say the counsels, Eloquium divinum est in ore regis, saith Solomon and Barclay citys, three fundamental laws in Scotland, in honour of the word of a KING. Si quis in alterius quam regis verba juraverit capitale esto. Si quis in jussu regis (without his word) homines in armis habuerit, morte crimen, expiatur. Solius Regis nomine jus onme redditur, conventus judicatur, concilia convocanter. But I chose rather to apply myself to God's Word, and then will prove the power of the word of a King.  
There are two powers of Kings plain in two places of God's Word, the first is Potestas. What he may and aught to do in equity, That is set down, In capite volume, Deut. 17. The second is Potentia jus impunitatis, what he may do, and yet may not be questioned by his subjects for so doing. This is in, 1 Sam. 8.12. and to the 19 The former is his own rule, as he will answer God if he transgress, the latter is his people's rule for their obedience. The former power what is religious and just towards God and his people, his grave Divines, and skilful Lawyers who are about his person are bound to explain. The one to rehearse. Otho Frigensis his sentence to him or such like concerning the day of judgement. Cum horre dum sit omni mortali incidere in manus dei viventis, Regibus tamen eo erit horribilius, quo ipsi caeteris possent peccare liberius. They should be informed that Kings come from Christ's own thigh, Apoc. 19 On his thigh is written King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, That they come from the thigh of God, their government ought to be paternal and easy, to use his subjects as his own Children, as God useth man; that they ought not to wear Reheboams fingers, much less his Father's loins, but abraham's, yea Christ's loins more compassionate and kind to his people under the time of Christi●nitie then before: That their Sceptres are not given them to dish out the brains of their innocent subjects, but that it was derived from David's sheephook to lead his people by the waters of comfort, that the people are not to be gored with whips and Scorpions, and intolerable taxes and oppressions but to be led like sheep by the hands of Moses and Aaron. That they are anointed with oil, in token to make glad the hearts of all their subjects, not besmear them over with Vinegar. And not only religion, but also in Policy his Counsellors, and Lawyers are bound in Conscience to exhort him to keep within the bounds of equity and imperrall right. Catose's counsel oft repeated to him. Potentes parce uti debere potestate ut diu possint They ought to advise him that few Laws whether in Church or Common wealth are admirable preservatives both of Kings and kingdoms The government of the jews had not continued long under the Ceremonial Law (the burden too heavy for them to bear) had not God watched over them with severe judgements. And if many Laws be enacted, and those not closely united to reason, but only depending on the placitum of the Lawmaker, if also thereby he tie both their Consciences and purses (to which the Consciences of most men are tied) it is not morally possible, but such a kingdom by the malice of men will shortly after be confounded. They ought to inform that he ought to rule more Turcico His people are not mancipia, nor more valdesiano, they have possessions under him; neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without fault in the subject to be in his power: But that his subjects are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in subordination and subjection only. That a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump a little oppression makes all his subjects source, especially if the people be aforehand seasoned with the leaven of the Pharisees, with hypocrisy, who have nothing of Religion ssave names of faith and tread-water-grace inspirations, marks of Election of their own choosing, reprobating all besides themselves even Kings if they please them not, having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, even the power the Kings. The power they are bound to advise the King of who are employed about his person; We who have to deal with the people are bound to deliver his secundam power nifi impunitatis, who may say unto the King if he do amiss, What dost thou, Kings are not to be questioned.  
The first we find in this sacrilegious, form to Moses a Deputy, no King was, Corah and his complices, and as their way was not the common way of obedient subjects, so neither was their death the common death of men. For say they could charge Moses and Aaron with intrusion into their rights, must the form needs be by the way of question interrogative. Cur elevamini, there are many other ways to have done it more meekly: and if you mark it, it is no ordinary quare lamma, but an imperious term, umaddans, what is the reason; Ephori like, we require an account of the administration of the Common wealth. This saucy form of questioning the Jews kept till our Saviour's time: Is not this the Carpenter's son. Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar, who made thee a ruler over us. It was the Donatists' form in Saint Augustine: Quid nobis imperatores? It is the Pope's form. It is the Presbyterians-factious form. It is the devil's form of coming to Kings with insolent questions? Quid agis, we expect satisfaction not the word of a King only, for what hath been governed amiss. Quanquam dignus sit haec contum lia, etc. Here in the Text is an answer as large, though not as unreasonable, and that in the same way by way of question. Who may say unto him? 1. Quis e clero? 2. Quis ex optimatibus. 3. Quis e Magistratibus regni. 4. Ques e Populo? may dare say to Him, Him anointed with oil for supremacy and continuance in his Throne! Him! unctum but Christum Domini, Him? Not man but God? what subject? what profane person? what mortal man may dare say unto him? What dost thou.   

I. Quis e Clero  
WHo of all the Church for matters of Religion or Sacrilege may question the authority of a King. Begin we with our Lord and Master of Religion, our Saviour Christ, he suffered not Saint Peter to resist the Magistrate: Saint Austin reprehends both Moses and Saint Peter, Contra Manich: ille fraterno, hic domanico amore peccavit: nec pro fratre, nec pro Christo, itaque nec pro Christi Religione est adversus principes machinandi locus. Baronius to the year of Christ 350. saith that in the purer times of Christians non cogitaverunt de vindicta, for saith Tertul. If malum malo dispungi, were lawful in Christians, Nos implevimus castra urbes, oppida, etc. we had all the Garrisons and forts of the kingdom, una nox pauculis faculis, we could have lighted our cruel Tyrants to their graves. Saint Basil gave up the Town to julian the Apostate even when they might have defended themselves against him, he rather by tears, and prayers, beseecheth him to spare the Christians. Famous is Saint Ambrose in his obedience to Theodosius, Suadeo rogo, horror, admoneo, no more to a King Ego in te contumaciae animam non habeo, sed habeo timoris, and when Valentine demanded his Church, he answers the King, that by right, thou canst not take away the house of a private man (neither can be) and think you by your power to take away the House of God, yet mark, imperatori non done, sed non nego, tradere basilicant possum, sed pugnare non debeo, volens nunquam jus deseram coactus repugnare non novi, dolere potero, potero gemire, aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere But excelling all these is the practice of holy Samuel towards, Saul who was neither Priest nor Christian, I Sam. 15. when saul's kingdom was rend from him, decreto divino, he requested Samuel to stay and entreat God for him. No, Perjecisti Sermonem domini & projecit te dominus ne sis Rex super Israel, Saul catcheth at him and rend his mantle. Samuel replies, The Lord hath rend the kingdom of Israel from thee this day. Then saith Saul, I have sinned, honour me I pray thee before the Elders of my people: Here Samuel stayed, and returned and followed after Saul.  
The vices of Idolatry of a King may not be remonstrated or declared down to the people, by any member of the Church of God, we must honour him before the people and Elders in Israel. Yea though he rend off our mantles from our backs, although he deprive us of all our revenues, we must with St. Bernard say, if all the world should importune me, to dishonour the person of Lodovicus for his sacrilege, Ego tamen Deum timerem. Oh that our popular Clergy either would or could look beyond Luther. They might then learn more manners towards Kings, from Irenaeus, Tertullian, chrysostom, Basil and to qualify their ignorant zeals or their malicious knowledge. Let them take one rule for all to speak honourably of the persons of KINGS from Nazianzen, in his discourse with Constans the Arrian. He doth not proclaim him Pharaoh, or an Idolater, or (quod quidam fecit) That Tophet is prepared of old, and for the King. I dare not begin to reckon, opus erit viatico. But benignifica natura tua, Domine Auguste, intelligit singularis & admirabilis sapientia tua, aequum videri debet sanctitati tuae gloriosissime Auguste, dignantissime imperator, sancte Rex, locuturus sum tecum, cum honore regni & fideitus, and these honourable terms to an Arrian. And 4. hundred Fathers of the Church spoke no other language at Ariminum to an Arrian.  
But the Church of God is as the Jewish Temple twice built. And as at the latter raising of it, the old men who had seen the glory of the former wept in memory of it, for I doubt not but the grave Divines in this, and other Churches, who have seen the glory of the former part of the Church in the writings of the fathers, do weep to see it in this latter age built up indeed of specious names, and outsides of Religion, but all operative faith, devotion Chastity, Temperance, Patience, Obedience even to Kings is made a question. The Pope he lead is in the front of the latter part of the Church against the right of the Kings. He that in former times swore, in eo per quem reges regnant, He whom the Florentine History can inform, that his supremacy was not derived from an obscure place of Scripture or two. But from the Emperor's removing his Court from Ravenna; since which time not Kings, but Popes are Gods; and the Society of Jesus, that slaughter-House of Kings, can change a Text for his holiness, My sone fear thou God and the Pope, Churchmen are exempt from the power of Kings saith Samuel Sa. A jesuite: A Roman Catholic rebelling is no traitor saith the same Samuel Sa. Sexcentis versibus eorum impuritas traloqu nemo potest, in so much as 'tis a proverb in Quiccardine it is the property of the Church to hate the King.  
There is in these latter times another faction against the King who cry, but with the Donatists, Quid nobis imperatori? And as the Papists. Dominus Deus noster papa, so these Dominus Deus noster consistorium, presby●erianum. But that you ever sufficiently detest that kind of government, I will give you one of their phrases from the Bishop of Winchester, their Church (say they) is the house (or rather their private houses the Church) and the Commonwealth but the hang, now the hang must be made fit for the house not the house for the hang. And if the King and his Princes be too high for their holy house, they must cut them shorter and with the help of an Anabaptist lay them even with the ground But we have as yet no such rebellious custom, nor I hope ever shall; nor the Churches to God. Let the Clergy for their obedience imitate holy Samuel to Saul, Eliah to Ahab, who by special commission told him, not his people of his sins. Imitate Jeremy in the prison, Daniel in the den. Amos struck through the Temples, Zacharias murdered between the porch and the Altar, Christ our Master under Herod, Tiberius, suffering under Pontius Pilate, the Apostles under Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Domitian, Saint John in a Tub of Oil, Christian Bishops for many hundred years under Tyrants, Idolaters, Atheists, none of all these reviled their Princes, while they were alive. Last of all remember that Saint Bernard, Fidem ●onorum amissione, exilio, morte non prodam, terramincolo, quasi semper migraturus. And Saint Chrysost. In Epistola ad Cyrac: will the King or the Queen banish me. The earth is the Loras and the fullness thereof; will he cut me in pieces? I can remember Esay, will he cast me into the Sea? jonas. If into the furnance? The three Children. If to the Lions? Daniel. If stone me? Saint Stephen. If behead me? Saint John, last (for I dare not rebel) will he take away my whole estate and substance from me? that of job, nudus exivi ex utero matris meae & nudus revertar. This for the Church: Quis e clero, if like the Primitive Fathers, may say unto the King, Quid agis? What dost thou?   

2. Quis ex optimatibus regni? May say unto the KING what dost thou.  
Were it not think you a very ungrateful sight to behold a Bull or an Unicorn pushing at the Lion? or the Falcon to seize upon the Eagle? So, and much more unseemly were it for the Princes of the Land to question their natural King, or to reprehend his government, otherwise then by advice and humble entreaty. And here I have no mind at this time to undervalue the persons and honours of the Princes of the Land, though but in a comparative way, in that the people will conceive all spoken absolutely, which may be delivered by way of comparison, and with the King only, pro quo caeteri, etc. And so have their lives in no honour. And their deaths in contempt and derision, a fault too general in this kingdom at this day.  
John a Prince ●n Israel slew his Master, he had peace because he had a Commission saith justin Martyr. But had Zimri peace that slew his Master? David a Prince under Saul took up four hunddred men, but with no intent to oppose the person of Saul, but to preserve himself: And Hugo Grotius grants that to have been lawful under the government and law of the jews, which is not under the law of Christians we being bound to more perfect patience and obedience in regard of better promises concerning another kingdom, so that David case is no precedent for us; moreover there is no necessity to think that David intended so much as a defensive war against Saul, but rather as the jews under Antiochus to departed into the wilderness; and defend himself against the wild beasts, or to take some towns of the Philistims, until the day of the death of Saul; Thus dumb timuit oleum servavit inimicum: All that David did when he could have cut his throat, was that he cut off the skirt of his garment, and even of this he repent, percussit eum cor ejus: And it is this day a tradition amongst the jews saith Lyranus, that David was punished in his death respectively to this sin, that no clothes could keep him warm, quia oram vestis Sauli abscidit, in vestibus, quibus opertus erat, non calefiebat. There is ground for this in the book of Kings: But whether true or no, ficta arguunt, the moral is good. Princeps non est austeroris verbiense faedandus, nec vel ultimae super fluae actionis corum quasi finbriam vituperando decorpere presum●mus. Absalon a Prince David's son rebels with the rairest pretence, that both Religion and Justice could make for him, forsooth that neither were duly executed in the land; he would do it, yea and that speedily, in the gates of the City; but mark his end, suspensus erat quasi in patibulo, he was gibbeted without a Hangman, transfixus tribus sagittis. 1. For disobedience to his natural Father, 2. For opposing his natural Sovereign. 3. For spoiling both Church and state, under show of Religion and Justice even when he lay with his Father's Concubines upon the house top: And let all the enemies of the Lord the King be as the young man is.   

3. Quis e Magistratibus regni? May say unto the King what dost thou?  
A vinculis delictorum liberi sunt reges saith Saint Ambrose, and Saint Austin, to moderate the zeal of any inferour Magistrate affirms, if they command any thing, it is not to command but a presumption, and obedience to them, proficiet ad paenam non ad premium quam ad contumeliam pertinet creatoris ut contempto Domino colamur serai & spreto imperatore adorentur comites. No counsel or Sanedrim could lawfully question Moses; who was no King but Legatus Dei. Howsoever Philo in honour of him styles him King. There is no question but the general counsel of a kingdom is the most incomparable medium of preferring both King and people, that the reason of man can possibly invent: But then the power of it must be only directive not coercive. For I would ask by what law? by the Kings? No man is bound to give a prejudicial judgement against himself, and if any equal have no power over an equal much less an inferior over a superior. Laws made by the King are not buchanan's, to tie him down under the judgement and censure of his people, but they are Organs or instruments of the power that governeth, at once thereby to reach the whole people, not coactively to bind the legislator, for the K. In whom humane power doth reside, is a person that cannot by his own power be controlled much least by the power of any subject; moreover every active ability whether in nature or in morals is (per se) cause or principal of alteration corruptively in another body, not in the body in the which itself resides. Wherefore if Divines or Lawyers affirm obligation in Princes to their laws, they teach herein only the bond of conscience. They are not Idonei judices, they appeal strait to God. Tibi soli peccavi. But to put an end to all questioning of Kings by any under Magistrate whatsoever; I require an answer to the Law of God in these following questions. Who questioned Saul for slaying the Priests? did the Sanedrim? who questioned Solomon for his revolt to Idolatry? did the Sanedrim? who questioned joram a Parricide, and 6. times a murderer of his Nobles? did the Sanedrim? who joas for his Idolatry and slaying the High Priest did the Sanedrim? who questioned Theodosius for murdering 6000. innocent souls? who questioned Constance, Valens? Julian the Apostate? who traduced their persons and dignities? who offered them tumultuous affronts? unless we will skill more in Religion then the former part of the Jewish and Christian world, Desinamus ogganire, & plura reges percontari. Remember that of Cicero Regum haec sunt imperia animadverte, & edicto , & preter rogitatum si loquare moriere. And that of the Persian King, mementote parendum vobis esse magis quam suadendum, even the fundamental laws of this kingdom, are by chance or good providence, plain for the unquestioned power of the King, by any lower Magistrate; Thomas of Walsingham speaks from a Parliament held at Lincoln, An. 130. That the King of England from their preeminence and custom at all times have not to answer before any Judge either Ecclesiastical or civil. And Henry or Brachton citys a fundamental of this land, that if any thing be to be obtained of the King (Cum breve non currat contra Regem) there is nothing left to them but entreaty and prayers, that he would correct himself; which if he please not to do it is enough that he expect the Lord from heaven as his only revengers. De Chartis Regis facta Regum nec justiciaris nec privatae personae debent disputare. For certainly if there be in a Commonwealth, a reluctancy between two governments each watching its advantage and priority, it cannot be but as Esau and jacob struggled in the womb; so these in the state will breed convulsion fits, each contending who shall come forth in government, one of them at length will come forth with scarlet strings on his hands and bloody banners. If a body have two heads they will not easily agree upon motion. To end this questioning by Magistrates we will call Tertullian. Reges sunt super omnes homines & ante omnes Deos: And that proverb of the Rabines, Nulla Creatura judicat Rogem.   

Quis e populo, May dare say unto the KING what dost thou.  
GOd bless this poor people, it is totus in questionibus, busy in speculations & questions concerning things that do not much concern them, they have been in Divinity long ago, as whether faith only, or good works justify, and such like questions, the Divines have been vehement in those disputes, and the people conceived strait matter of salvation to be in the knowledge of them, than they undertake to discuss the question, in conclusion believe nothing but their own fantasies, and resolve to do no good works at all: Then whether the Common-prayer be not diservice, new English, for the new Religion, of whom it may be fitly said as Tully of Antho●y, for his pientissimus, quod verbum latino sermone non est, id ad tuam singularem pretatem exprimendam inventum est: Whether kneeling at the Sacrament (that tremendum mysterium of the commemoration of Christ's passion be not Idolatry; whether Jesu-worship be lawful, and that resolved to their hands, whether to worship God in entrance to his house in the presence of his Angels, saith Terullian, be not superstitione, O tempora. Whether we may repeat the Lords Prayer that Idol? O mores, whether the sign of the Cross, used in Tertullia's time be not now popery. O ridiculum! but I may not excusse the rest by name so few, come we nearer to the Text, whether if our Clergy will not preach unto us such Pharisiacall, seditious, ignorant, Diabolical doctrine, we may not choose others in a case so concerning the destruction of our souls. And then whether if the King Himself will not conform to our vain senseless religions, (so many now for number infinite, for quality so blasphemous that it is impossible for one man to know them all, and for rational man to practise any of them) we may not question his government? whether to make the question more semblable) a King in a State, be not like a Mariner in a ship? if one will not, another must. The Mariners thought so in the last tumult, vix vera esse nisi cunctanter crederem, nisi his oculis videram. In sum, whether both for Religion and civil policy we may not as we have done to the Clergy, so to the King put up insolent questions. Quid agis? Why dost thou rule otherwise then we please to be ruled ourselves. O that my head were a fountain of tears, etc. Jerem.   

1. For Religion.  
We read of rebellion intended against Ahashuerus, 2 Hester ver. 21.22. No reason set down, but in diebus illis, and what were those days? you might know them by the story. Ahasuerus had married Ester his Queen a virtuous woman, but of another Religion. Bigthan and Thares, 'tis like were crossed in the match, but see they draw their arguments from popular heads, to interest 127. provinces in the rebellion. Ahasuerus our King matcheth with a Jew, one of a Religion hated among us, one that cares neither for Mithra nor Wamasdres, one brought in to ruinated the established religion in Persia, which by our Law ought not to be altered. Thus they are zealous on the sudden, as the fashion of the world is; This jealousy delivered down and digested by a prevailing faction in the people, they forthwith (although there be no cause) are ready tumultuatim to run up to the King with Quid agis? Why dost thou change our Religion. Good people) for so I may rhetorically call them) if you intent a new religion take not rebellion in your way, for a thing that I will tell you in Luther's reformation, when was more need than now is, the rule of obedience was not duly observed, and there fell in or upon that reformation 100 thousand of the people, before than that you need a reformation, before you adventure upon the dangers. Barclay accuseth Luther for it, I dare not defend him, I find him in his book, Contra regem Angliae, very familiar and impudent to the King, stoliditas vestra, asinitas vestra, cornicula avum, aut regem nasci aut fatuum; and I wish there be no such Sheimies such felly tongued reformers abroad in this our pious reformation. Barclay chargeth Luther, yet farther of the death of all those people, that when he had moved them to rebellion, and could not accomplish his own ends, he was the first that moved the Magistrate to ruin and destroy them, all how true God knows, but this the people may know is true in Policy in States men, under the larve of Religion to draw the people to one side, but if they fail in their plots and ambitious Projects, they to prefer themselves must be the first and most active in cutting the people's Throats whom they have stirred up.  
Again, in the Reformation after the death of so many thousands, and there issued forth so many Schisms from the Anarchy, that holy Melancton who loved not Popery confessed for unities sake, they must all return to the Church of Rome again and Prot: in his An: on Cass: Porf: speaks little less, better to endure one extremity then Twenty, better admit of one tyrannical Religion than a hundred. And I pray God it be not the effect, and resultance of our many Schisms and distractions in our Church at this day. To come with questions contradiction to a King, for Religion was not heard of in the jewish Government. The Law in Deutren mie 13.6. was if thy brother or thy son, or thy wife, or thy friend entice thee to Idolatry, sistas coscoram judice, not if thy Father, or thy Husband, or thy Judge, for certain not thy King. The manner of Balthasars' deposition for abusing God's Religion and Temple, is very remarkable by all good Subjects. None of his Subjects must dare to draw up the order no, a hand writing out of the wall from God, must declare it, and when it was there none of all the people were able to read it, so strange a thing to a subject is a deposition of his King, no nor the Astrologers nor Soothsayers, no nor the Devil himself is able to understand it. Daniel is sent for, he only by divine revelation is able to read, and what is it. Mene, Mene, tekell uparsin, God not the people hath numbered thy Kingdom and finished it, Joseph 17. chap. 36. Tells us of the sect of the Pharisees, who to the number of six thousand in zeal to their hypocritical Religion, were in a covenant by themselves against Caesar, some of that number came to our Saviour with that question (for that is still their form) is it lawful to give Tribute unto Caesar. They are resolved not to do it before, and these Sectaries proved the ruin of the jewish Government, with whom Doctor jackson compares the Schismatics, of his, and these times, growing on so fast, that both he and Sir Walter Ral. 2. Hist. spoke out of prophetic wisdom, that they would hazard the ruin both of this Church and State, and they would force it into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confusion. For indeed what else can be expected, when every one may assume his own Religion, and such a one as may encourage him to contradict the established government of the Church, on the one hand, and the fundamental Laws of the Land be obscured on the other, and the Majesty and power of the King's person contemned, what remains but we may say over this Church as jugurtha over Rome. O urbem venalem & lite perituram si emptorem invenerit.   

2. For Civil Government.  
As the people for Religion may not question the King, so neither for the policy and civil affairs, may they say unto him, what dost thou. And here the people are furnished (I know not whence) with as many questions to molest the quiet of the state, as they have been of late to disturb the peace of the Church. And first may not his own Laws say unto him Quid agis? Directive they may coactive, they neither may nor can; if the King be in an error, he can make new laws to defend his error, saith Saint Augustine, and Sir Walter Ralleigh, reprehends Bracton though a Philachrist, for saying that a King is King by the Law, Me ito debet res tribuere regi quod lex attribuit ei nam lex facit ut ipse sit Rex. Whereas saith Sir Walter, Bracton ascribes this power to humane Law, he is missed ken, for Kings are made by God, and Laws Divine, and by humane Laws are only declared to be King. But is he not a King by our election? Election doth not make him King although, unless he had been chosen he had not been such. As they are to say of good work, they are via ad regnum non causa regnandi, so may we of election, 'tis not the cause but the way to the kingdom, and so we find in Scripture, where the people chose, God made the King it is not nos, but Ego posui regem super Israel, and it was Gods admirable wisdom, when the world could no longer subsist under paternal Government, in that men and malice increasing in the world, paternal indulgences would not do right respectively, every man's injuries both expressly in the jewish government and in other States by the Law of reason do prompt them to elect one man as their common Father, that this one man, this common Father, this King not interested in private respects might distribute justice impartially, and punish offences in equity: and also that the people by their own act of election might be obliged the more to obey him, although he proved rigid and austere, as they would and ought to obey their natural Father, which act God evermore confirms in Heaven, this may appear better in a similitude. Original sin is remitted in Baptism, but not ex opere operato, yet if there be no opus operatum there is (by virtue of the covenant ordinario, no remission of the sin; and after opus operatum it is impossible for the Priest to revoake the sin again remitted in heaven. So is it in elective kingdoms, and all are such naturally) the opus operatum of the people, sc. there election doth not make the King, neither is he made King without it, and after election he is so made and confirmed in Heaven that their act cannot ex jure be reversed again. For election according to God's Laws, right, reason, is not a conditional of tying of Kings down to the people's ends: so as if he answer not their ends, he shall be no longer King, but it is a resignation of our natural and private interest of revenge of all our parity, which we have with him, by the Law of nature into the hands of God, that he would place him super nos. It might have been said, as to Ananias and Saphira was it not your own before such election and resignation of your rights? If now you shall demand your right again, and question his Prerogative and immunity, it may be said as to them, why have ye lied to the Holy Ghost.  
Secondly, what if he break the fundamental Laws of the Land, to which he is sworn. It is an old principle, Perjurium iure non solvit regnum, Solomon answers, Eccles. 10. Rex insipiens prodet populum, not populus insipiens prodet regem, as it is now this day. Now a King by changing the Laws, and ancient government doth civilly destroy the kind of his people. But what if be be not of capacity to understand the Laws? As if the laws be not to be understood: such there be in the world. But if they be the Prophet Hosea 13. tells you, V●● ibi terracujus Rex puer est, not 〈◊〉 ubi Rex cuius terra, etc.  
Thirdly, what if a Tyrant? may we not question him then? for that injuria Tyranni est in facto, usurpation of a Kingdom, not his own. Ius regis est in facti impunitate. God will reckon with Kings one day, for abusing his Image in the meanest of his subjects. But if touch him; you may Athenian like expel one Tyrant, and gain thirty if not more. Peritt Nero sed nullo successu, one year after his death proved worse than fourteen of his Tyrannte. And it was the Countryman's proverb, I wish they had it again, Antigonum effodio, we shall have a worse master, a worse King when this is gone.  
The jewish Government was more subject to tyranny then any Nation, then in the world or since, in that they lied under a spec all form of punishment, to keep them in more perfect obedience: As if a private man offended, many of the people suffered death, either meritory in themselves, for their sins, though occasionaliter, from the sin of another person, or else from God's absolute dominion over the temporal life of man. But if a King transgressed, many thousands perished. 70. thousands died for David's sin in numbering the Soldiers, here is a strange tyranny over the lives of the subject, and yet David was not chased too and fro in his kingdom, and the power of calling his soldiers taken out of his hand. And yet as David spoke, I have sinned, let me be punished, as for this people, quid fecit? So the people may invert the words, we have sinned and one wickedly, but for this righteous King, quid ille fecit? Daniel under the names of beasts, foretells certain Kings degenerating into tyranny, according to the several qualities and kinds of tyranny. In the New Testament, Tell Herod the Fox. But we read not that they were deposed of their kingdoms by their subjects. Pharaoh suffered ten plagues for his tyranny, God suffers not rebellion to be one, but Frogs, Locust, Caterpillars, Famine, sc. Herod is destroyed not by subjects, but by Lice. It seems God would not do them the honour, as to perish by the hands of men, not by women, Abimeleches fear, not by enemies, saul's fear, much less by subjects, but in simili, as they lived like beasts, so must they be consumed. Rebel not then, do not Tyrants that to much honour expect, a while God's potent and just revenge; he is best skilled how to suit and proportion punishments to the persons of Kings, he can take them away by some contumelious death, and can send Armes of Locusts, Frogs, and such base Vermin to destroy them. You see how easy it is for God to take vengeance of his own Kings. No need of deep plots of many year's contrivance, no need of hearing of encumbrance, and distractions of your own making, and the wrath of God to the rest, when Flies, and Lice, and Frogs in Pharaohs Chamber may serve the turn. When as God, not the people saith Calvin may turn Nabuchadnezzar to grass among the beasts or the field. And also that if notwithstanding this you will destroy your Kings, remember whose places you supply of the most contemptible vermin living, you who remaining in obedience are men, not jews but Christians one day not men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Kings in Gods own kingdom, by rebellion ye make yourselves, not Angels, not Christians, not jews, no not men, no not beasts of the better sort, but Locusts, but Frogs, but starved Kine and Lice, Nay ye shall be as the dust of which God made the Lice, and the Angel of the Lord scattering you.  
It was an evil custom among the Goths to destroy their Kings upon any small displeasure, and Barclay tells us of a custom in Burguney if they year brought forth no Corn they removed their King contrary to the proverb. In Tacitus, malum regem & ster●lem annum aequo feramus. Kings ruled with Burgandians by a prophetic Almanac, I pray God we in this Land prove not Burgundians. If our luxurious and earthly pleasures and profits be crossed by the doctrines of the learned and pious Clergy, or by the commands of the King though for our own security and peace, if we miss any of our former delights, than Burgundian like, Terra non peperit hoc anno, nos ilaque pariamus; what novum clerum, novum, Kegem, noves leges, new nothing, but new confusion, new distractions, new schisms, new incests, new (for number,) adulteries, and when after lamentable experience you shall compare the old and new government together, ye will say, as our Saviour did of wine, no man drinketh new Wine, but faith the old is better.  
I do not here reprehend the whole people, I have learned more Rhetoric from Quintili●n, I know many went along with Absalon to the paying of his vow who were not in the rebellion, many both menand women are like the Disciples going to Emaus whose hearts are warm within zealous for the truth, but their eyes are holden by the seditious ignorant Ministers of the times, that they cannot see the true face of Christianity: No I speak not to these, but I speak to Burgundian Subjects, Almanac subjects who would feign change their King with their Religion and that once a year at least, I speak to men engaged to this earth, to their covetousness, to their lusts, drunkenness, swearing, gluttony, not in the University only, but in the Town and Country; where not, who when any rate or subsicy for the public good, either kerb their customs in expensive v●ces, or cross their tenacious humours than Burgundian like, Terra non poperit hoc anno; Etevestigio, there arise under thoughts of the King, they expound his actions with disadvantage to his honour, at length come up to him boldly to him with impudent questions, Quid agis? why are we governed otherwise, than we have a mind to be governed ourselves.  
Hard, to hard is the condition of Kings, if so much liberty be allowed to the Subjects, if they at their unbounded pleasure may report a religious King to be superstitious, a devout King a hypocrite, if grave and serious austere and sullen: if pleasant dissolute: if merciful, to be defective in spirit and valour: if severe against rebellion, tyrannical; if bountiful (though in policy) profuse; if provident, for his Royal posterity covetous; if such insolent disgraces may pass uncensurd on the persons of Kings, then actum est de regibus, down with Kings and kingdoms, Church and State, and all union among the sons of men.  
Fourthly, May we not by nature's principles question and remove evil Kings from us as we do evil beasts, for the security of our estates and lives. An answer from nature shall censure the question. Drink naturally quencheth thirst, but if you take it in a fever it will more inflame you, than you may not consult with the inferior appetite, but with reason, let blood, purge, and potion directed by the direction of the Physician, not your own sense so in a Commonwealth diseased by Tyranny; the people may not use the inferior right of private nature, for in a Commonwealth private persons have given up their private right of punishing, they cannot punish a private person, for certain not the King, to whom their right is resigned; what then, if the disease be hot upon us we we must be let blood, purge our luxuriant passions, our inflamed rebellious humour, remove each man his particular sins, consult with the Physician of States by prayers and tears, beseech the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who hath the hearts of Kings in his own hand, and can upon submission to himself and his King, either remove him or amend him. Haec est expedissima via reprimendi tyrannidem saith Salibur. Peccata enim delinquentium sunt vires tyrannorum.  
Fifthly, may not the people say unto the King what dost thou? Or what art thou, without the people? Are not we the strength of a King? Did not Pyrrhus say to his Soldiers they were his wings, and he but the body? I desire no greater honour to be given to the King, then to be thought the body to a pair of wings, go see if he can fly without that body, so it may be said next unto God, in the King your body ye live and move, and have your being, and for your strength, it is true, ye have enough, but for what? even to eat up one another alive, as it is in the Jewish proverb.  
Sixthly, But if the people have not those rights and privileges which they enjoyed under his predecessors, may they not come then to him with quid agis? First, all Kings in an elective kingdom by successionare pares, they enter naturally upon jus integrum, so that if any rights have passed from former Kings pejudiciall to the Crown, jure regni, they return again; yet, Secondly, if any right of the subjects (for rights they have) have passed from them to former Kings in consideration of such privileges, it is both honourable and just that they be recompensed or restored back again.  
Seventhly, what if he violate the conditions propounded to him and his predecessors upon his entrance to the Crown? may not the people question him for that? Not so far I believe as is commonly thought summum imperium & conditionatum, may very well be conseniasanea, and not opposites. In the Persian kingdom he is sworn to the laws of the Persians, which ought not to alter, and yet none may question him, if he violate these laws. In the Jewish government wherein Kings were absolute and uncontroleable by their subjects, there were some cases & conditions in which jure he had no power to judge, as de Tribu, de pontifice, de propheta, as is plain, jer. 38.5. yet although these conditions were delivered by God Himself, if the K. (as appears in many places of the book of Kings and Chron.) did intermeddle it was not in the power of the jews to question or derrive him of his government. But what if it be a condition that if he break these laws he shall ipso facto, void his kingdom, as it hath been in some States. This will be found a most prejudicial condition both to King and people, for we living in this world not by mathematical demonstrations, where there is no medium between rectum & ●●rium, but by moral rules, where there are many formae interjectae between rectum & curvum, vice and virtue. Some virtuous actions coming near vice are deemed vicious, and some vicious coming mere virtue, are reckoned virtuous, it will be very hard to know what when a King punctually keeps all his conditions, but at the pleasure of a prevailing faction in the people, he will be judged either directly or by consequence to have broken the conditions on which his kingdom depends, this kind of government must be very doubtful and destructive to a Commonwealth.  
Lastly, may not the people come unto the King with quid agis? if he intent and threaten to destroy the whole State, as Nero and Caligula, or if he intent to give up himself and his kingdom without the subjects consent not only in Patrocinium but in ditionem, to another Prince. In both these cases, ex hypothesi, that there hath been no rebellion in the subject, and then the cases are morally impossible; Grotius, Barclay, and Abbas, Winzelus, are of opinion that the Law of nature doth return unto the people again, both for to defend themselves and elect again. But the holy Abbot is of a better opinion that the Law of Nature is not always to be resumd by Christians, especially here where it cannot be taken, but with many inconveniences and uncertainties both from our not knowing what is a full intention and for defect of a lawful Judge, and in regard of appeals to other Nations, and beside these a breach of many Laws of Christianity. His advice is rather than to injure our Christian profession to betake ourselves to fasting and prayers, and removing from us our particular lusts and wickedness provided thus for death, expect God's providence who never fails religious men and kingdoms in this general preparation for death; either God may turn him and his armies from us, put a hook in his nostrils, or else confound his person with some sudden judgement, even Lice may consume his unnatural bowels, or if not, non ●●cet sed purgat, Saint Ambrose he doth but hasten us to a better kingdom, an everlasting one in heaven. Durus est Sermo sed tulit judeus, & f●rat Christianus.  
Now in the name of Religion, in the name of the peace of the Commonwealth, and the honour of the King let me ask you these questions.  
You that come up so boldly to the face of a King for the Relion who should clamare a fancy ejus are ye sure the Religion ye question him for is the right Religion? are ye sure your inspirations are not from the Devil? are ye sure your Ministers are both for learning and manners, such as in whom ye may conside in a matter that so concerns your souls? And that they do not humour you contrary to their own consciences, out of respect to preferment in the Church which at another time either their poverty in parts, or poverty in manners could not attain.  
Are ye sure that those that from your Pulpits declaim so fervently against superstition and Idolatry, have not themselves been leaders in that which they now condemn in others, and so cannot be fit judges what is Idolatry? Or else themselves are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again are ye all of one Religion that the King may satisfy you all at once? If ye be not all of one Religion, tell us how many your are of if you can? And if you should chance to be one Religion at any time hereafter, are ye sure to continue in it? That the King may not be troubled Burgundians like to establish a new Religion once every year for you. If you be not certain of all these, as I am sure you are not, how dare ye certainly confound King, Church, and State, for an uncertain Religion.  
Again for your Policy and civil government are ye certain of the fundamental laws of the land? Are ye sure ye cannot digest an Arbitrary government under the notion and term of fundementall laws? It is not an impossible thing in nature that, are ye sure, if the King be not absolute and sole judge of fundamental laws to be freed from avarice and ambition in the interior judges and Magistrates two inseprable vices in Aristocracy: Both which are satisfied in a King ambition in that he is summu, Avarice, in large estate. Are ye sure of the same Senate always, and if you be extreme now time may come when others may be as extreme now time may come when others may be as extreme, and so the kingdom hurried between two extremes, the people's rule being to run from one extreme unto another. Lastly are ye sure if ye put any more insolent questions to the king, you may not turn a meek and pious King as ever sat upon this Throne, into a Tyrant. A learned Church as ever any in this Kingdom or else where into ignorance. Aflourishing stat as any in the Christian world into a confusion, a long and happy peace into as long and unhappy war? a fullness into famine? your wives to widows? your children to Orphans? yourselves into your grave, and you leave this nation behind you a Desolation a hissing a reproach a by word to the nations round about us.  
And now God forgive me if in this discourse I have not intended rather the liberties and rights of the subject, than the prerogative of the King, I remembered all this while what Saint August saith Tolle jura Regum et quis potest dicere haec volla mearst, take away the Kings sole and absolute government, and who can secure his own life and estate, they must needs, be subject to a thousand alterations, I beseech you therefore by your dear and many Children, by the ancient Protestant Religion, by the ancient and fundamental laws in this land for obedience King, sit down with prayers and tears, for these many distractions Saint Bernard's way non scuta sed fletu reparate rempub: Amend your lives be charitable and kind on to another fit down together in peace under your vines, as people who hope hereafter to fit down in the kingdom of heaven. In a word fear God honour the King neither people nor Church nor Nobility, nor inferior Magistrate of the land lay unto the King by the way of rebellious contradiction, What dost thou.  
FINIS.