A57975:842
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.
Ans. To obey the Kings personal will, when it is sinful, (as we now suppose) against his legal will, is a sin, and a disobedience to God, and the King also, seeing the Law is the Kings will, as King: but to obey his Legal will against his sinful personal will (as it must be sinful, if contrary to a just Law) is obedience to the King as King, and so obedience to God. 2. You take the Kings person to be himself; but you take quid pro quo, for his person here, you must take not Physically for his suppost of soul and body; but morally, it is the King, as a sinning man doing his worst will, against the Law which is his just and best will, and the rule of the Subjects: and the Kings personal will is so far just, and to regulate the Subjects, in so far, as it agreeth with his legal Will, or his Law, and this will can sin, and therefore may be crossed without breach of the fifth Commandment: but his Legal Will cannot be crossed without disobedience both to God and the King.
Ans. To obey the Kings personall will, when it is sinfull, (as we now suppose) against his legall will, is a sinne, and a disobedience to God, and the King also, seeing the Law is the Kings will, as King: but to obey his Legall will against his sinfull personall will (as it must be sinfull, if contrary to a just Law) is obedience to the King as King, and so obedience to God. 2. You take the Kings person to be himself; but you take quid pro quo, for his person here, you must take not Physically for his suppost of soul and body; but morally, it is the King, as a sinning man doing his worst will, against the Law which is his just and best will, and the rule of the Subjects: and the Kings personall will is so far just, and to regulate the Subjects, in so far, as it agreeth with his legall Will, or his Law, and this will can sinne, and therefore may be crossed without breach of the fifth Commandement: but his Legall Will cannot be crossed without disobedience both to God and the King.
Symmons, p. 28. The Kings Personal will doth not always presuppone passion: and if it be attended with passion, yet we must bear it for conscience sake. Ans. We are to obey the Kings Personal will, when the thing commanded, is not sin; but his Subjects as Subjects, have little to do with his personal will in that notion. It concerneth his domestic servant, and is the Kings will as he is the master of servants, not as he is King in relation to Subjects; but we speak of the Kings personal will, as repugnant to Law, and contrary to the Kings will as King, and so contrary to the fifth