A57975:720
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.
3. It is presumed that God hath not provided better for the safety of the part, then of the whole,1 especially when he maketh the part a mean for the safety of the whole.
3. It is presumed that God hath not provided better for the safety of the part, then of the whole,1 especially when he maketh the part a meane for the safety of the whole.
- 1Argum. 3.
But if God have provided that the King, who is a part of the Common-wealth, shall be free of all punishment, though he be a habitual destroyer of the whole Kingdom, seeing God hath given him to be a Father, Tutor, Saviour, Defender thereof, and destinated him as a mean for their safety, then must God have worse, not better provided, for the safety of the whole, then of the part. The Proposition is clear in that God, Rom. 13.4. 1 Tim. 2.2. hath ordained the Ruler, and given to him the sword to defend the whole Kingdom and City; but we read no where, that the Lord hath given the sword to the whole Kingdom, to defend one man a King, though a Ruler come going on in a Tyrannical way of destroying all his subjects.
But if God have provided that the King, who is a part of the Common-wealth, shall be free of all punishment, though he be a habituall destroyer of the whole Kingdome, seeing God hath given him to be a Father, Tutor, Saviour, Defender thereof, and destinated him as a meane for their safety, then must God have worse, not better provided, for the safety of the whole, then of the part. The Proposition is cleare in that God,