A57975:98
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.
QUEST. XXII. Whether the power of the King as King, be absolute, or dependent, and limited by Gods first mould and pattern of a King? Negatur, Prius, Affirmatur, Posterius, p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk, p. 180. The King not absolute in his power, proved by nine Arguments, p. 181.182, 183, seq. Why the King is a living Law, p. 184. Power to do ill, not from God, ibid. Royalists say, power to do ill is not from God, but power to do ill as punishable by man, is from God, p. 186. ⟨image 16⟩A King, actu primo, is a plague, and the people slaves, if the King by Gods institution be absolute, p. 187. Absoluteness of Royalty against Justice, Peace, Reason, Law, p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother, p. 190. A Damsel forced, may resist the King, ibid. The goodness of an absolute Prince hindereth not, but he is, actu primo, a Tyrant, p. 189.
QUEST. XXII. Whether the power of the King as King, be absolute, or dependent, and limited by Gods first mould and patern of a King? Negatur, Prius, Affirmatur, Posterius, p. 179. The Royalists make the King as absolute as the Great Turk, p. 180. The King not absolute in his power, proved by nine Arguments, p. 181.182, 183, seq. Why the King is a living Law, p. 184. Power to do ill, not from God, ibid. Royalists say, power to do ill is not from God, but power to do ill as punishable by man, is from God, p. 186. ⟨image 16⟩A King, actu primo, is a plague, and the people slaves, if the King by Gods institution be absolute, p. 187. Absolutenesse of Royaltie against Iustice, Peace, Reason, Law, p. 189. Against the Kings relation of a brother, p. 190. A Damsel forced, may resist the King, ibid. The goodnesse of an absolute Prince hindereth not, but he is, actu primo, a Tyrant, p. 189.