A57975:878
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.
3. The cutting off of a contagious member, that by a Gangrene, would corrupt the whole body, is well warranted by nature, because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part: Nor is it much that Royalists say the King being the head, destroy him, & the whole body the Common-wealth is dissolved; as cut off a mans head, & the life of the whole man is taken away; Because, 1. God cutteth off the spirits of tyrannous Kings, and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved,1 no more then when a Leopard or a wild Boar, running through children is killed, it can be the destruction of all the children in the land. 2. A king indefinitely is referred to the Common-wealth as an adequate head to a Monarchical Kingdom, ⟨p. 332⟩and remove all Kings and the politic body as Monarchical, in its frame, is not Monarchical, but it leaveth not off to be a politic body, seeing it hath other Judges, but the natural body without the head cannot live. 2. This or that tyrannous King, being a transient mortal thing, cannot be referred to the immortal Common-wealth, as it is adequate correlate. They say, the King never dieth, yet this King can dye; an immortal politic body, such as the Common-wealth, must have an immortal head, and that is a King as a King; not this or that man, possibly a tyrant, who is for the time (and eternal things abstract from time) only a King.
3. The cutting off of a contagious member, that by a Gangrene, would corrupt the whole body, is well warranted by nature, because the safety of the whole is to be preferred to the safety of a part: Nor is it much that Royalists say the King being the head, destroy him, & the whole body the Common-wealth is dissolved; as cut off a mans head, & the life of the whole man is taken away; Because, 1. God cutteth off the spirits of tyrannous Kings, and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved,1 no more then when a Leopard or a wilde Boare, running through children is killed, it can be the destruction of all the children in the land. 2. A king indefinitely is referred to the Common-wealth as an adequat head to a Monarchicall Kingdome, ⟨p. 332⟩