1. It is clear, that the king's power is not absolute, as kings and flattering courtiers apprehend; a king's power is a limited power by this covenant; and there is a threefold limitation of the king's power. 1. In regard of subordination. There is power above his, even God's power, whom he is obliged to obey; and to whom he must give an account of his administration, (and yesterday ye heard that text, "by Me kings reign.") Kings have not only their crowns from God, but they must reign according to His will. He is called the "Minister of God;" he is but God's servant. I need not stay upon this; kings and all others will acknowledge this limitation. 2. In regard of laws, a king is sworn at his coronation, to rule according to the standing received laws of the kingdom. The laws he is sworn to, limit him that he cannot do against them, without a sinful breach of this covenant between the king and the people. 3. In regard of government, the total government is not upon a king. He hath counsellors as a parliament or estates in the land, who share in the burden of government. No king should have the sole government: it was never the mind of those who received a king to rule them, to lay all government upon him, to do what he pleaseth, without controlment. There is no man able alone to govern all. The kingdom should not lay that upon one man, who may easily miscarry. The estates of the land are bound in this contract to bear the burden with him. These men who have flattered kings to take unto themselves an absolute power, to do what they please, have wronged kings and kingdoms. It had been good that kings, of late, had carried themselves so, as this question of the king's power might never have come in debate; for they have been great losers thereby. Kings are very desirous to have things spoken and written, to hold up their arbitrary and unlimited power; but that way doth exceedingly wrong them. There is one, a learned man, I confess, who hath written a book for the maintenance of the absolute power of kings, called _Defensio Regis_, whereby he hath wronged himself in his reputation, and the king in his government. As for the fact, in taking away the life of the late king, (whatever was God's justice in it) I do agree with him to condemn it, as a most unjust and horrid act, upon their part who did it: but when he cometh to speak of the power of kings, in giving unto them an absolute and unlimited power, urging the damnable maxim, _quod libet licet_, he will have a king to do what he pleaseth, _impune_, and without controlment. In this, I cannot but dissent from him.