A57975:703
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.
Lex, Rex. › Question 26: QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no?
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.
2. Assert. It is denied by none; but the King is under the directive power of the Law, though many liberate the King from the coactive power of a civil Law. But I see not what direction a civil Law can give to the King, if he be above all obedience, or disobedience to a Law, seeing all Law-direction is in •rdine ad obedientiam, in order to obey; except thus far, that the light that is in the civil Law, is a moral or natural guide to conduct a King in his walking; but this is the morality of the Law which enlighteneth and informeth, not any obligation that aweth the King; and so the King is under Gods and Natures Law, this is nothing to the purpose.
2. Assert. It is denyed by none; but the King is under the directive power of the Law, though many liberate the King from the coactive power of a civil Law. But I see not what direction a civil Law can give to the King, if he be above all obedience, or disobedience to a Law, seeing all Law-direction is in •rdine ad obedientiam, in order to obey; except thus far, that the light that is in the civil Law, is a morall or naturall guide to conduct a King in his walking; but this is the morality of the Law which inlightneth and informeth, not any obligation that aweth the King; and so the King is under Gods and Natures Law, this is nothing to the purpose.
3. Assert. The King is under the Law, in regard of some coercive limitation:
1. Because there is no absolute power given to him to do what he listeth, as a man. And because,