A57975:105
Lex, Rex
Lex, rex The law and the prince : a dispute for the just prerogative of king and people : containing the reasons and causes of the most necessary defensive wars of the kingdom of Scotland and of their expedition for the aid and help of their dear brethren of England : in which their innocency is asserted and a full answer is given to a seditious pamphlet entitled Sacro-sancta regum majestas, or, The sacred and royal prerogative of Christian kings, under the name of J. A. but penned by Jo. Maxwell the excommunicate P. Prelate. : with a scriptural confutation of the ruinous grounds of W. Barclay, H. Grotius, H. Arnisœus, Ant. de Domi P. Bishop of Spalata, and of other late anti-magistratical royalists, as the author of Ossorianum, D. Fern, E. Symmons, the doctors of Aberdeen, &c. : in XLIV questions.Lex, rex The law and the prince : a dispute for the just prerogative of king and people : containing the reasons and causes of the most necessary defensive wars of the kingdom of Scotland and of their expedition for the ayd and help of their dear brethren of England : in which their innocency is asserted and a full answer is given to a seditious pamphlet intituled Sacro-sancta regum majestas, or, The sacred and royall prerogative of Christian kings, under the name of J. A. but penned by Jo. Maxwell the excommunicate P. Prelat. : with a scripturall confutation of the ruinous grounds of W. Barclay, H. Grotius, H. Arnisœus, Ant. de Domi P. Bishop of Spalata, and of other late anti-magistratical royalists, as the author of Ossorianum, D. Fern, E. Symmons, the doctors of Aberdeen, &c. : in XLIV questions.
London: printed for John Field, 1644London: printed for Iohn Field, 1644
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
QUEST. XXIX. Whether in the case of defensive War, the distinction of the Person of the King as a man, who may, and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects, and of the Office and Royal Power that he hath from God and the people, can have place? Affirmatur. p. 265. The Kings Person in concreto, and his Office in abstracto, or which is all one, the King using his Power lawfully, to be distinguished, Rom. 13 ▪ p. 265. To command unjustly maketh not a higher power. p. 265.266. The person may be resisted, and yet the Office cannot be resisted, proved by fourteen Arguments. p. 265, 266. seq. Contrary Objections of Royalists, and of the P. Prelate answered, p. 270, 271. seq. What we mean by the person and Office in abstracto in this dispute, we do not exclude the person in concreto altogether, but only the person as abusing his power, we may kill a person as a man, and love him as a son, father, wife, according to Scripture, p. 272, 273, 274. We obey the King for the Law, and not the Law for the King, p. 275, 276. The loosing of habitual and actual Royalty different, p. 276. Joh. 19.10. Pilates power of crucifying Christ, no Law-power given to him of God, its proved against Royalists by six Arguments, p. 280.
QUEST. XXIX. Whether in the case of defensive War, the distinction of the Person of the King as a man, who may, and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects, and of the Office and Royall Power that he hath from God and the people, can have place? Affirmatur. p. 265. The Kings Person in concreto, and his Office in abstracto, or which is all one, the King using his Power lawfully, to be distinguished, Rom. 13 ▪ p. 265. To command unjustly maketh not a higher power. p. 265.266. The person may be resisted, and yet the Office cannot be resisted, prooved by fourteene Arguments. p. 265, 266. seq. Contrary Objections of Royalists, and of the P. Prelate answered, p. 270, 271. seq. What we meane by the person and Office in abstracto in this dispute, we doe not exclude the person in concreto altogether, but only the person as abusing his power, we may kill a person as a man, and love him as a sonne, father, wife, according to Scripture, p. 272, 273, 274. We obey the King for the Law, and not the Law for the King, p. 275, 276. The loosing of habituall and actuall Royalty different, p. 276.