A57975:799
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.
2. The present question is not of Subjects only, but of the Estates, and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom; I utterly deny these as they are Judges, to be subjects to the King; for the question is, Whether is the King, or the representative Kingdom greatest, and which of them be subject one to another: I affirm, Amongst Judges as Judges, not one is the Commander or Superior, and the other, the commanded or subject. Indeed, one higher Judge may correct and punish a Judge, not as a Judge, but as an erring man.
2. The present question is not of Subjects onely, but of the Estates, and Parliamentary Lords of a Kingdom; I utterly deny these as they are Iudges, to be subjects to the King; for the question is, Whether is the King, or the representative Kingdom greatest, and which of them be subject one to another: I affirm, Amongst Iudges as Iudges, not one is the Commander or Superiour, and the other, the commanded or subject. Indeed, one higher Iudge may correct and punish a Iudge, not as a Iudge, but as an erring man.
3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act ⟨p. 258⟩of War, as concerning the power of natural Defence, upon supposition, That the King be not now turned an habitual Tyrant, but that upon some acts of mis-information, he come in arms against his Subjects.
3. The question is not so much concerning the authoritative Act ⟨p. 258⟩of War, as concerning the power of naturall Defence, upon supposition, That the King be not now turned an habituall Tyrant, but that upon some acts of mis-information, he come in arms against his Subjects.