A57975:748
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.
1. And Kings to do unjustice to their subjects, because by this the superior cannot sin against the inferior, for as much as ⟨p. 243⟩Kings can sin against none, but those who have power to judge and punish them; but God only, and no inferiors, and no subjects have power to punish the Kings, therefore Kings can sin against none of their subjects, and where there is no sin, how can there be a Law? neither Major or Minor can be denied by Royalists.
1. And Kings to doe unjustice to their subjects, because by this the superiour cannot sinne against the inferiour, for as much as ⟨p. 243⟩Kings can sin against none, but those who have power to judge and punish them; but God only, and no inferiours, and no subjects have power to punish the Kings, therefore Kings can sin against none of their subjects, and where there is no sin, how can there be a Law? neither Major or Minor can be denyed by Royalists.
2. We acknowledge Tyranny must only unking a Prince. The Prelate denieth it, but he is a green Statist. Barclay, Grotius, Winzetus, as I have proved granteth it.
2. We acknowledge Tyra•ny must only unking a Prince. The Prelate denyeth it, but he is a green Statist. Barclay, Grotius, Winzetus, as I have proved granteth it.
3. He will excuse Nero as of infirmity, wishing all Rome to have one neck, that he may cut it off. And is that charitable of Kings that they will not be so mad as to destroy their own Kingdom? But when Stories teach us there have been more Tyrants then Kings, the Kings are more obliged to him for flattery, then for State-wit, except we say that all Kings who eat the people of God, as they do bread, owe him little, for making them all mad and frantic.