A57975:514
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.
1Barclaius, Grotius, Doct. Ferne, (The P. Prelates wit could come up to it) say, That absolute power to do ill, so as no mortal man can lawfully resist it is from God; and the King hath this way power from God as no subject can resist it, but he must resist the Ordinance of God, and yet the power of tyranny is not simply from God.
1Barclaius, Grotius, Doct. Ferne, (The P. Prelates wit could come up to it) say, That absolute power to do ill, so as no mortall man can lawfully resist it is from God; and the King hath this way power from God as no subject can resist it, but he must resist the Ordinance of God, and yet the power of tyranny is not simply from God.
- 1Barclaius […] l. 2. pag. 62.Barclaius 〈…〉 l. 2. pag. 62.
Answ. The Law saith, Illud possumus quod jure possumus, Papinus F. filius, 1D. de cond. Just. The Law saith, It is no power which is not lawful power. The Royalists say, power of Tyranny in so far as it may be resisted, and is punishable by men, is not from God; but what is the other part of the distinction; it must be, that Tyrannical power is simpliciter from God, or in it self it is from God, but as it is punishable or restrainable by subjects, it is not from God: now to be punishable by subjects, is but an accident and tyrannical power is the subject, yea, and it is an separable accident; for many Tyrants are never punished, and their power is never restrained, such a Tyrant was Saul, and many persecuting Emperors: Now if the Tyrannical power it self was from God, the argument is yet valid, and remaineth unanswered; and shall not this fall to the ground as false, which Arnisaeus de autho. princ. c. 2. n. 10. Dumb contra officium facit. Magistratus non est Magistratus, quippe a quo non injuria, sed jus nasci debeat, l. meminerint. 6. C. unde vi. din. in C. quod quis, 24. n. 4, 5.—Et de hoc neminem dubitare aut dissentire scribit, Marant. […]. 1. num. 14. When the Magistrate doth by violence, and without law any thing in so far doing against his Office, he is not a Magistrate; then say I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. 2. None doeth then resist the Ordinance of God, who resist the King in Tyrannous acts. 2. If the power, as it cannot be punished by the subject, nor restrained, be from God. Ergo, the Tyrannical power itself, and without this accident (that it can be punished by men) it must be from God also; but the conclusion is absurd, and denied by Royalists. I prove the connection: For if the King have such a power above all restraint, the power it self, to wi, King Davids power to kill innocent Uriah, and deflower Bathsheba, without the accident, of being restrained or punished by men, is either from God, or not from God; if it be from God, it must be a power against the sixth and seventh Commandment, which God gave to David, and not to any subject, and so David lied when he confessed this sin, and this sin cannot be pardoned because it was no sin; and Kings because Kings, are under no tie of duties