A57975:115
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. XXXIX. Whether or no, any Prerogative at all above the Law be due to the King? Or if jura majestatis be any such Prerogative? Negatur, p. 389. A threefold supreme power, ibid. What be jura regalia, p. 390, 391. Kings confer not honours from their plenitude of absolute power, but according to the strait line and rule of Law, justice, and good deserving, ibid. The Law of the King, 1 Sam. 8.9, 11. p. 392, 393. Difference of Kings and Judges, ibid. The Law of the King, 1 Sam. 8.9, 11. No permissive Law such as the Law of divorce, p. 394. What dominion the King hath over the goods of the subjects, p. 395, 396, 397.
QUEST. XL. Whether or no, the people have any power over the King, either by his Oath, Covenant, or any other way? Affirmed, p. 398, 399. The people have power over the King, by reason of his Covenant and Promise, ibid. Covenants and promises violated, infer Coaction, de jure, by Law, though not de facto, p. 399, 400. Mutual punishments may be, where there is no relation of superiority and inferiority, p. 399, 400, 401. Three Covenants made by Arnisaeus, ibid. ⟨image 20⟩The King not King while he swear the oath, and be accepted as King by the people. ibid. The oath of the Kings of France, ibid. Hu. Grotius, setteth down seven cases, in which the people may accuse, punish, or dethrone the King, p. 403, 404. The Prince a noble Vassal of the Kingdom, upon four grounds, p. 405. The covenant had an oath annexed to it, ibid. The Prince is but as a private man in a contract. p. 406. How the Royal power is immediately from God, and yet conferred upon the King by the people, p. 407, 408, 409.