A57975:239
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.
Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument, and yet Barclaius need not thank him, for it hath not the nerves that Barclaius gave it. But I answer, 1. if the Parliament should have been corrupted by fair hopes (as in our age we have seen the like) the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Mass Book, when the Lords of the Counsel pressed it against all Law of God and man, upon the Kingdom of Scotland, and therefore it is denied that the Acts of Parliament are irrevocable, the observator said they were irrevocable by the King, he being but one man, the P. Prelate wrongeth him, for he said only, they have the power of a Law,1 and the King is obliged to consent, by his Royal Office to all good Laws, and neither King nor people may oppose them. Buchanan said Acts of Parliament are not Laws obliging the people till they be promulgated, and the peoples silence when they are promulgated is their approbation, and maketh them obligatory Laws to them; but if the people speak against unjust Laws, they are not Laws at all, and Buchanan knew the power of the Scottish Parliament, better then this ignorant Statist. 2. There is not like reason to grant so much to the King, as to Parliaments, because certainly Parliaments who make Kings under God, or above any one man, and they must have more authority and wisdom then any one King, except Solomon (as base flatterers say) should return to the thrones of the earth.2 And as the power to make just Laws is all in the Parliament, only the people have power to resist tyrannical Laws, the power of all the Parliament was never given to the King, by God, the Parliament are as essentially Judges as the King, and therefore the Kings deed may well be revoked, because he acteth nothing as King; but united with his great or lesser Council, no more then the eye can see, being separated from the body. The Peers and Members of Parliament have more then the King, because they have both their own power, being parts and special Members of the people, and also they have their high places in Parliament, either from the peoples express, or tacit consent. 3. We allow no Arbitrary power to the Parliament, because their just Laws are irrevocable, for the irrevocable power of making just Laws doth argue a legal, not an irrevocable Arbitrary power;
Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument, and yet Barclaius need not thanke him, for it hath not the nerves that Barclaius gave it. But I answer, 1. if the Parliament should have been corrupted by fair hopes (as in our age we have seene the like) the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Masse Booke, when the Lords of the Counsell pressed it against all Law of God and man, upon the Kingdome of Scotland, and therefore it is denyed that the Acts of Parliament are irrevocable, the observator said they were irrevocable by the King, he being but one man, the P. Prelate wrongeth him, for he said onely, they have the power of a Law,