A57975:311
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. XIIII. Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally, or absolutely? and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no less then his subjects?
QUEST. XIIII. Whether or no the people make a Person their King conditionally, or absolutely? and whether there be such a thing as a Covenant tying the King no lesse then his subjects?
There is a Covenant Natural and a Covenant Politic and Civill, there is no politic or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects, because there be no such equality (say Royalists) betwixt the King and his people, 1as that the King can be brought under any civill or legal obligation in mans Court, to either necessitate the King civilly to keep an Oath to his people, or to tie him to any punishment, if he fail, yet (say they) he is under natural obligation in Gods Court to keep his Oath, but he is comptible only to God, if he violate his Oath.
THere is a Covenant Naturall and a Covenant Politick and Civill, there is no politick or civill covenant betwixt the King and his Subjects, because there be no such equality (say Royalists) betwixt the King and his people, 1as that the King can be brought under any civill or legall obligation in mans Court, to either necessitate the King civilly to keepe an Oath to his people, or to tye him to any punishment, if he faile, yet (say they) he is under naturall obligation in Gods Court to keepe his Oath, but he is comptible only to God, if he violate his Oath.
- 1The King under a natural, but no civil obligation to the people, say Royalists.