QUEST. XXV. What force the Supreme Law hath over the King? even that Law of the Peoples safetie, called, Salus Populi. (1) to QUEST. XXV. What force the Supreme Law hath over the King? even that Law of the Peoples safetie, called, Salus Populi. (2)

QUEST. XXV. What force the Supreme Law hath over the King? even that Law of the Peoples safetie, called, Salus Populi. (1)

THe Law of the 12. Tables, is, Salus populi, Suprema lex. The safetie of the People is the supreme and Cardinall law, to which all Lawes are to stoope. And that from these Reasons:

1. Originally: Because, if the People be the first Author, Fountaine, and Efficient, under God, of Law and King, then their own safetie must be principally sought, and their safetie must be farre above the King, as the safetie of a Cause, especially of an universall Cause, such as is the People, must be more then the safetie of one, as Aristotle saith, l. 3. polit. alias l. 5. [gap]. The part cannot be more excellent then the whole: nor the effect above the cause.

2. Finaliter. This Supreme law must stand; for if all Law, Policie, Magistrates and Power be referred to the peoples good, as the end, Rom. 13.4. and to their quiet and peaceable life in godlinesse and honestie: then must this Law stand, as of more worth then the King, as the end is of more worth then the meanes leading to the end; for the end is the measure and rule of the goodnesse of the meane: and, finis ultimus in influxu est potentissimus. The King is good, because he conduceth much for the safetie of the People; Ergo, the safetie of the people must be better.

3. By way of limitation: Because no Law, in its letter, hath force, where the safetie of the Subject is in hazard: and if Law, or King be destructive to the people, they are to be abolished. This is cleare in a Tyrant, or a wicked man.

4. In the desires of the most holy: Moses, a Prince, desired for the safetie of Gods people; and rather then God should destroy his people, that his name should be razed out of the booke of life. And David saith, 1 Chron. 21.17. Let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord my God, be on me, and on my fathers house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued. This being a holy desire of these two publick Spirits, the object must be in it selfe true; and the safetie of Gods people, and their happinesse, must be of more worth then the salvation of Moses, and the life of David, and his Fathers house.

The Prelate borroweth an answer to this, (for he hath none of his own) from D. Ferne. The safetie of the Subjects is the prime end of the constitution of Government: but it is not the sole and adequate end of government in Monarchie; for that is the safetie of both King and People. And it beseemeth the King to proportion his lawes for their good; and it becommeth the People to proportion all their obedience, actions and endeavours, for the safetie, honour, and happinesse of the King. It's impossible the people can have safetie, when Soveraigntie is weakened.

Ans. The Prelate would have the other halfe of the end, why a King is set over a People, to be the safetie and happinesse of the King, as well as the safetie of the People. This is new Logick indeed, that one and the same thing should be the meane, and the end. The question is, For what end is a King made so happy, as to be exalted King? The Prelate answereth; He is made happy, that he may be happy; and made a King, that he may be made a King. Now is the King, as King, to intend this halfe end? that is, Whether or no accepteth he the burden of setting his head and shoulders under the Crowne, for this end, that he may not only make the people happy, but also that he may make himselfe rich and honorable above his brethren, and enrich himselfe? I beleeve not: but that he feed the people of God. For if he intend himselfe, and his own honour, it is the intention of the man who is King, and intentio operantis; but it is not the intention of the King, as the King, or intentio operis. The King, as a King, is formally and essentially the Minister of God for our good, Rom. 13.4. 1 Tim. 2.2. and cannot come under any notion as a King, but as a mean, not as an end, nor as that which he is, to seeke himselfe. I conceive, God did forbid this, in the moulding of the first King, Deut. 17.18, 19, 26. He is a minister by office, and one who receiveth honour and wages for this worke, that ex officio, he may feed his people. But the Prelate saith, the people are to intend his riches and honour. I cannot say but the people may intend to honour the King: but that is not the question, whether the people be to referre the King and his government as a meane to honour the King? I conceive not. But that end which the people in obeying the King in being ruled by him, may intend, is, 1 Tim. 2.2. That under him they may lead a quiet and a peaceable life, in all Godlinesse and honestie. And Gods end in giving a King, is the good and safetie of his people.

P. Prelate. To reason from the one part and end of Monarchicall government, The safetie of the Subjects; to the destruction and weakning of the other part of the end of the power of Soveraigntie, and the Royall prerogative: is a caption à divisis. If the King be not happy, and invested with the full power of a Head, the Body cannot be well. By Anti-Monarchists; The people at the beginning were necessitated to commit themselves, lives and fortunes to the government of a King, because of themselves they had not wisedome and power enough to doe it: and therefore they enabled him with honour and power, without which he could not doe this, being assured that he could not choose but most earnestly and carefully endeavour this end, to wit, his own, and the peoples happines. Ergo, the safetie of the people issueth from the safetie of the King, as the life of the naturall body from the soule. Weake Government is neare to Anarchie. Puritans will not say, Quovis modo esse, etiam poenale, is better then non esse: The Scripture saith the contrary; It were better for some never to have been borne, then to be. Tyranny is better then no Government.

Ans. 1. He knowes not Sophismes of Logick, who calleth this Argument, à divisis: for the Kings Honour is not the end of the Kings Government: He should seeke the safetie of State and Church, not himself; Himselfe is a private end, and a step to Tyranny.

2. The Prelate lyeth, when he maketh us to reason from the safetie of the Subject to the destruction of the King. Ferne, Barclay, Grotius, taught the hungry Scholler to reason so. Where read he this? The People must be saved; That is the Supreme law: Ergo, destroy the King. The Devill and the Prelate both, shall not fasten this on us. But thus we reason: When the man who is the King, endeavoreth not the end of his Royall place, but, through bad counsell, the subversion of Lawes, Religion, and bondage of the Kingdome; The free Estates are to joyne with him for that end of Safetie, according as God hath made them heads of Tribes, and Princes of the people: And if the King refuse to joyne with them, and will not doe his dutie; I see not how they are in conscience liberated, before God, from doing their part.

3. If the P. Prelate call resisting the King by lawfull defensive wars, the destruction of the Head; He speaketh with the mouth of one excommunicated, and delivered up to Sathan.

4. We endeavour nothing more then the safetie and happinesse

of the King, as King: but his happinesse is not to suffer him to destroy his Subjects, subvert Religion, arme Papists, who have slaughtered above two hundred thousand innocent Protestants, only for the profession of that true Religion which the King hath sworne to maintaine. Not to rise in armes to helpe the King against these, were to gratifie him as a Man, but to be accessarie to his soules destruction, as a King.

5. That the Royall Prerogative is the end of a Monarchie ordained by God; neither Scripture, Law, nor Reason can admit.

6. The people are to intend the safetie of other Iudges, as well as the Kings. If Parliaments be destroyed, whose it is to make Lawes and Kings; the People can neither be safe, free to serve Christ, nor happy.

7. It is a lie, that people were necessitated, at the beginning, to commit themselves to a King: for we read of no King, while Nimrod arose: Fathers of families (who were not Kings) and others, did governe till then.

8. It was not want of wisedome, (for in many, and in the people, there must be more wisdome then in one man:) but rather corruption of nature, and reciprocation of injuries, that created Kings, and other Iudges.

9. The King shall better compasse his end, to wit, the safetie of the people, with limited power, (placent mediocria) and with other Iudges added to helpe him, Num. 11.14, 16. Deut. 1.12, 13, 14, 15. then to put in one mans hand absolute power: for a sinfull mans head cannot beare so much new wine, such as exorbitant power is.

10. He is a base flatterer, who saith, The King cannot choose but earnestly and carefully endeavour his own, and the peoples happinesse: that is, the King is an Angel, and cannot sinne, and decline from the duties of a King. Of the many Kings of Judah and Israel, how many chose this? All the good Kings that have been, may be written in a gold ring.

11. The peoples safetie dependeth indeed on the King, as a King and a happy Governour; but the people shall never be fattened to eat the winde of an imaginarie Prerogative Royall.

12. Weake Government, that is, a King with a limited power, who hath more power about his head, nor within his head; is a

strong King, and farre from Anarchy.

13. I know not what he meaneth, but Arminius, his Masters way and words are here, for Arminians say, That being in the damned eternally tormented is no benefit, it were better they never had being, then to be eternally tormented; and this they say to the defiance of the Doctrine of eternall Reprobation, in which we teach, That though by accident, and because of the Damned their abuse of being and life, it were to them better not to be; as is said of Iudas, yet simpliciter comparing being with non-being, and considering the eternity of miserable being in relation to the absolute liberty of the Former of all things, who maketh use of the sinfull being of Clay-vessells for the illustration of the glory of his Iustice and power, Rom. 9.17, 22. 1 Pet. 2.8. Iude v. 4. It is a censuring of God, and his unsearchable Wisedome, and a condemning of the Almighty of cruelty (God avert blasphemy of the unspotted and holy Majesty) who by Arminian grounds, keepeth the Damned in life, and being to be fuell eternally for Tophet, to declare the glory of his Iustice. But the Prelate behoved to goe out of his way to salute and gratifie, a proclaimed enemy of free Grace Arminius, and hence he would inferre, That the King wanting his Prerogative Royall, and fulnesse of absolute power to doe wickedly, is in a penall and miserable condition, and that it were better for the King to be a Tyrant, with absolute liberty to destroy, and save alive at his pleasure, as is said of a Tyrant, Dan. 5. v. 19. then to be no King at all. And here consider a Principle of Royalists Court faith.

1. The King is no King, but a lame and miserable Iudge, if he have not irresistable power to wast and destroy.

2. The King cannot be happy, nor the people safe; nor can the King doe good in saving the needy, except he have the uncontrollable and unlimited power of a Tyrant, to crush the poore and needy, and lay wast the mountaine of the Lords inheritance: such Court-ravens, who feede upon the soules of living Kings, are more cruell then Ravens and Vultures, who are but dead carcasses.

Williams B. of Ossarie answereth to the Maxime, Salus populi, &c. No wise King but will carefully provide for the peoples safety, because his safety and honour is included in theirs, his destruction in theirs. And it is, saith Lipsius, egri animi proprium nihil diu pati. Absolom perswaded there was no justice in the Land, when he intendeth Rebellion.

And the poore Prelate following him, spendeth pages to prove that Goods, Life, Chastity and Fame dependeth on the safety of the King, as the breath of our nostrills, our Nurse-father, our Head, cornerstone, and Judge, c. 17.6.18.1. The reason why all disorder was in Church and State, was not because there was no Iudge, no Government; none can be so stupid as to imagine that. But because 1. They wanted the excellentest of Governments. 2. Because Aristocracy was weakened so, as there was no right. No doubt Priests there were, but Hos. 4. either they would not serve, or were over-awed, no doubt in those daies they had Iudges, but Priests and Iudges were stoned by a rascally multitude, and they were not able to rule; therefore it is most consonant to Scripture to say, Salus regis suprema populi salus. The safety of the King and his Prerogative Royall is the safest sanctuary for the people. So Hos. 3.4. Lament. 2.9.

Ans. 1. The question is not of the Wisedome, but of the Power of the King, if it should be bounded by no Law.

2. The flatterer may know, there be more foolish Kings in the world then wise, and that Kings misled with Idolatrous Queenes, and by name Achab ruined himselfe, and his posterity and Kingdome.

3. The salvation and happinesse of men standing in the exalting of Christs Throne and the Gospell, ergo every King, and every man will exalt the Throne, and so let them have an incontrollable power without constraint of Law, to doe what they list, and let no bounds be set to Kings over subjects; by this Argument their owne wisedome is a law to leade them to Heaven.

4. It is not Absoloms mad Male-contents in Britane, but there were really no justice to Protestants, all indulgence to Papists, Popery, Arminianisme, Idolatry printed, Preached, professed, rewarded by Authority, Parliaments, and Church Assemblies, the Bulwarkes of Iustice and Religion were denyed, dissolved, crushed, &c.

5. That by a King he understandeth a Monarch, Iudg. 17. and that such a one, as Saul, of Absolute power, and not a Iudge, cannot be proved, for there were no Kings in Israel in the Iudges daies, the Government not being changed till neare the end of Samuels Government.

6. And that they had no Iudges, he saith, It is not imaginable, but I rather beleeve God then the Prelate, Every one did what was

right in his owne eyes, because there was none to put ill doers to shame. Possible the Estates of Israel governed some way for meere necessity, but wanting a supreme Iudge which they should have, they were loose: but this was not because where there is no King, as P. P. would insinuate, there was no Government, as is cleare.

7. Of tempered and limited Monarchy, I thinke as honourably as the Prelate, but that absolute and unlimited Monarchy is excellenter then Aristocracy, I shall then beleeve when Royalists shall prove such a Government, in so farre it is absolute, to be of God.

8. That Aristocracy was now weakened I beleeve not, seeing God so highly commendeth it, and calleth it his own reigning over his people, 1 Sam. 8.7. The weakening of it through abuse, is not to a purpose, more then the abuse of Monarchy.

9. No doubt (saith he) Hos. 4. They were Priests and Iudges, Hos. 4. but they were over-awed as they are now. J thinke he would say, Hos. 3.4. otherwise he citeth Scripture sleeping. That the Priests of Antichrist be not only over-awed, but out of the earth; I yeeld, that the King be limited, not over-awed, I thinke Gods Law, and mans Law alloweth.

10. The safety of the King as King, is not only safety, but a blessing to Church and State, and therefore this P. Prelate and his fellowes deserve to be hanged before the Sun, who have led him on a warre to destroy him, and his Protestant subjects. But the safety and flourishing of a King in the exercises of an Arbitrary, unlimited power against Law, and Religion, and to the destruction of his subjects, is not the safety of the people, nor the safety of the Kings soule, which these men, if they be the Priests of the Lord, should care for.

QUEST. XXV. What force the Supreme Law hath over the King? even that Law of the Peoples safetie, called, Salus Populi. (2)

The Prelate commeth to refute the learned and worthy Observator. The safety of the people is the supreme Law, ergo the King is bound in duty to promote all and every one of his subjects to all happinesse. The Observator hath no such inference, the King is bound to promote some of his subjects even as King, to a Gallowes, especially Irish Rebells, and many bloudy Malignants. But the Prelate will needs have God rigorous (hallowed be his name) if it be so, for it is unpossible to the tenderest-hearted father to doe so: actuall promotion of all is unpossible, that the King intend it of all his subjects,

as good subjects, by a Throne established on righteousnesse and judgement, is that which the worthy Observator meaneth; other things here are answered.

The summe of his second answer is, a repetition of what he hath said; I give my word in a Pamphlet of one hundred ninety and foure pages, I never saw more idle repetitions, of one thing twenty times before said. But page one hundred sixty and eight, he saith, The safety of the King and his subjects in the Morall notion may be esteemed Morally the same, no lesse then the soule and the body make one personall subsistence.

Ans. This is strange Logick, the King and his subjects are Ens per aggregationem; and the King as King hath one Morall subsistence, and the people another. Hath the Father and the sonne, the Master and the servant one Morall subsistence? but the man speaketh of their well being: and then he must meane that our Kings Government that was not long agoe, and is yet, to wit, the Popery, Arminianisme, Idolatry, cutting of mens eares, and noses, banishing, imprisonment, for speaking against Popery, arming of Papists to slay Protestants, pardoning the bloud of Ireland, that I feare, shall not be soone taken away, &c. are identically the same with the life, safety, and happinesse of Protestants, then life and death, justice and unjustice, Idolatry and sincere worship are identically one, as the soule of the Prelate and his body are one.

The third is but a repitition. The Acts of Royaltie (saith the Observator) are Acts of dutie and obligation; Ergo, not acts of grace properly so called. Ergo, We may not thank the King for a courtesie. This is no consequence. What fathers do to children, are acts of naturall dutie, and of naturall grace; and yet children owe gratitude to parents, and subjects to good Kings, in a legall sense. No, but in way of courtesie onely. The Observator said, The King is not a father to the whole collective body, and its well said, he is son to them, and they his maker. Who made the King? Policy answereth, The State made him, and Divinitie: God made him.

4. The Observator said well: The peoples weaknesse is not the Kings strength. The Prelate saith, Amen: He said, That that perisheth not to the King, which is granted to the people. The Prelate denyeth. Because, What the King hath in trust from God, the King cannot make away to another, nor can any take it from him, without sacriledge.

Answ. True indeed, If the King had Royalty by immediate trust, and infusion by God, as Elias had the spirit of prophecie, that he cannot make away: Royalists dream that God immediately from heaven, now infuseth facultie and right to Crowns, without any word of God. Its enough to make an Euthysiast leap up to the Throne, and kill Kings. Judge if these Fanaticks be favourers of Kings: But if the King have Royaltie mediately by the peoples free consent from God, there is no reason, but people give as much power even by ounce weights (for power is strong Wine, and a great mocker) as they know a weak mans head will bear, and no more; power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven: But a birth-right of the people borrowed from them, they may let it out for their good, and resume it when a man is drunk with it. 2. The man will have it conscience on the King to fight and destroy his three Kingdoms, for a dream, his prerogative above Law. But the truth is, Prelates do engage the King, his house, honour, subjects, Church, for their cursed Mytres.

The Prelate vexeth the Reader with Repetitions, and saith, The King must proportion his Government, to the safety of the people on the one hand, and to his owne safety and power on the other hand.

Ans. What the King doth as King, he doth it for the happinesse of his people, the King is a relative, yea even his owne happinesse that he seeketh, he is to referre to the good of Gods people. He saith farther, The safety of the people includeth the safety of the King, because the word populus is so taken, which he proveth by a raw sickly rabble of words, stollen out of Passerats Dictioner. His father the Schoole-master may whip him for frivolous Etymologies.

This supreame Law (saith the Prelate) is not above the Law of Prerogative Royall, the highest Law, nor is Rex above Lex. The Democracie of Rome had a supremacie above Lawes, to make and unmake Lawes: and will they force this power on a Monarch, to the destruction of Soveraigntie?

Answ. This, which is stollen from Spalato, Barclay, Grotius, and others, is easily answered. The supremacie of People, is a Law of natures selfe-preservation, above all positive Lawes, and above the King; and is to regulate Soveraigntie, not to destroy it. 2. If this supremacie of Maj[gap]stie was in people, before they have a King, then 1. they lose it not by a voluntary choise of a King; for a King is chosen for good, and not for the peoples losse, ergo they must retain

this power in habite, and potency, even when they have a King. 2. Then supremacy of Majesty is not a beame of Divinity proper to a King only. 3. Then the people having Royall soveraignty vertually in them, make, and so unmake a King, all which the Prelate denyeth.

This supreme Law (saith the Prelate, begging it from Spalato, Arnisaeus, Grotius) advance the King, not the people:

and the sense is, The Kingdome is really some time in such a case, that the Soveraigne must exercise an Arbitrary Power, and not stand upon private mens interests, or transgressing of Lawes, made for the private good of individualls, but for the preservation of it selfe, and the publicke, may break through all Lawes. This he may, in the case when suddaine forraine invasion threatneth ruine inevitably to King and Kingdome; a Physitian may rather cut a Gangreened member, then suffer the whole body to perish. The Dictator in case of extreame dangers (as Livie and Dion. Halicarnass. shew us) had power according to his owne Arbitrament, had a soveraigne Commission in peace and war of life, death, persons, &c. not co-ordinate, not subordinate to any.

Ans. It is not an Arbitrary power, but naturally tyed and fettered to this same supreame Law, Salus populi, the safety of the people, that a King breake through, not the Law, but the letter of the Law for the safety of the people; as the Chyrurgion, not by any prerogative that he hath above the Art of Chyrurgery, but by necessity, cutteth off a Gangreened member, thus its not Arbitrary to the King to save his people from ruine, but by the strong and imperious Law of the peoples safety he doth it; for if he did it not, he were a murtherer of his people. 2. He is to stand upon transgression of Lawes according to their genuine sense of the peoples safety, for good Lawes are not contrary one to another, though when he breaketh through the letter to the Law, yet he breaketh not the Law, for if twenty thousand Rebells invade Scotland, he is to command all to rise, though the formality of a Parliament cannot be had to indict the war, as our Law provideth; but the King doth not command all to rise, and defend themselves by a Prerogative Royall, proper to him as King, and incommunicable to any but to himselfe.

1. There is no such dinne and noise to be made for a King, and his incommunicable Prerogative, for though the King were not at all, yea though he command the contrary (as he did when he came

against Scotland with an English Army) the law of Nature teacheth all to rise without the King.

2. That the King command this as King, it is not a particular positive Law; but he doth it as a man, and a member of the Kingdom; The law of Nature, (which knoweth no dreame of such a Prerogative) forceth him to it, as every member is, by Natures indictment, to care for the whole.

3. It is poore hungry skill in this New Statist, (for so he nameth all Scotland) to say, that any Lawes are made for private interests, and the good of some individuals. Lawes are not Lawes, if they be not made for the safetie of the people.

4. It is false, that the King in a publike danger is to care for himselfe as a man, with the ruine and losse of any: Yea, in a publike calamitie, a good King, as David, is to desire he may die, that the Publique may bee saved, 2 Samuel, 24.17. Exodus 32.32. It is commended of all, that the Emperour Otho, yea and Richard the 2. of England, as M. Speed saith, Hist. of England, p. 757. resigned their Kingdomes to eschew the effusion of blood. The Prelate adviseth the King to passe over all lawes of Nature, and slay thousands of innocents, and destroy Church and State of three Kingdomes, for a straw, and supposed Prerogative Royall. Now certainly, Prerogative, and Absolutenes to doe good and ill, must be inferior to a Law, the end whereof is the safetie of the People. For David willeth the pestilence may take him away, and so his Prerogative, that the People may be saved, 2 Sam. 24.17. for Prerogative is cumulative, to doe good, not privative to doe ill; and so is but a meane to defend both the Law and the People.

2. Prerogative is either a power to doe good, or ill, or both: If the first be said, it must be limited by the End, and Law, for which it is ordained. A meane is no farther a meane, but in so far as it conduceth to the end; the safetie of all. If the second be admitted, it is Licence and Tyrannie, not power from God. If the third be said, both reasons plead against this, that Prerogative should be the King[gap] end in the present warres.

3. Prerogative being a power given by the mediation of the people; yea, suppose (which is false) that it were given immediately of God; yet it not a thing for which the King should raise war against his Subjects: for God will aske no more of the King, then he giveth to him: The Lord reapeth not, where he soweth not. If the Militia,

and other things, be ordered hitherto for the holding off Irish and Spanish invasion by Sea, and so for the good of the Land, seeing the King, in his own person, cannot make use of the Militia; he is to rejoyce that his Subjects are defended. The King cannot answer to God for the justice of warre on his part: It is not a case of conscience that the King should shed blood for, to wit, because the under-Officers are such men, and not others of his choosing; seeing the Kingdome is defended sufficiently, except where Cavaliers destroy it. And to me, this is an unanswerable argument, that the Cavaliers destroy not the Kingdomes for this Prerogative Royall, as the principall ground; but for a deeper designe, even for that which was working by Prelates and Malignants, before the late troubles in both Kingdomes.

4. The King is to intend the safetie of his People; and the safety of the King, as a Governour, but not as this King, and this man, Charles: that is a selfe end: a King David is not to looke to that: for when the people was seeking his life and crown, he saith, Ps. 3.8. Thy blessing upon thy People. He may care for, and intend that the King and Government be safe: for if the Kingdome be destroyed, there cannot be a new Kingdome and Church on earth againe to serve God, in that generation, Psal. 89.47. but they may easily have a new King againe: and so the safetie of the one, cannot in reason be intended, as a collaterall end, with the safetie of the other: for there is no imaginable comparison betwixt one man, with all his accidents of Prerogative and Absolutenesse, and three Nationall Churches and Kingdomes: Better the King weep for a Childish trifle of a Prerogative, than Poperie be erected, and three Kingdomes be destroyed by Cavaliers, for their own ends.

5. The Dictators power is, 1. a fact, and proveth not a point of Conscience. 2. His power was in an exigence of extreme danger of the Commonwealth. The P. Prelate pleadeth for a constant absolutenesse above Lawes, to the King at all times, and that jure Divino. 3. The Dictator was the Peoples creature; ergo, the Creator, the People, had that soveraigntie over him. 4. The Dictator was not above a King: but the Romanes ejected Kings. 5. The Dictators power was not to destroy a State: 2. He might be, and was resisted. 3. He might be deposed.

Prelate. The safetie of the People is pretended as a Law, that the Jewes must put Christ to death; and that Saul spared Agag.

Ans. No shadow for either, in the word of God. Caiaphas prophecied, and knew not what he said. But that the Iewes intended the salvation of the Elect, in kil[gap]ing Christ: or that Saul intended a publick good in sparing Agag, shall be the Prelates Divinitie, not mine.

2. What, howbeit many should abuse this Law of the peoples safety, to wrong good Kings, it ceaseth not therefore to be a Law, and licenseth not ill Kings, to place a Tyrannicall Prerogative above a just Dictate of nature.

In the last Chapter, the Prelate hath no reasons, onely he would have Kings holy, and this he proveth from Apocrypha Books, because he is ebbe in holy Scripture; but it is Romish holinesse, as is cleer.

2. He must preach something to himself, that the King adore a tree-Altar. Thus Kings must be most reverend in their gestures, pag. 182.

3. The King must hazard his sacred life and three Kingdoms, his Crown, Royall posterity, to preserve sacred things, that is, Antichristian Romish Idols, Images, Altars, Ceremonies, Idolatry, Popery.

4. He must upon the same pain maintain sacred persons, that is, greasie Apostate Prelates. The rest I am weary to trouble the Reader withall, but know ex ungue leo[gap]em.