A57975:367
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.
Object. 4. But (saith Doct. Fern) these which are ours, and given away to another, in which there redoundeth to God by donation a special interest, as in things devoted to holy uses, though after they be abused, yet we cannot recall them. Ergo, If the people be once forced to give away their liberty, they cannot recall it; far less, if they willingly resign it to their Prince.
Object. 4. But (saith Doct. Fern) these which are ours, and given away to another, in which there redoundeth to God by donation a speciall interest, as in things devoted to holy uses, though after they be abused, yet we cannot recall them. Ergo, If the people be once forced to give away their liberty, they cannot recall it; far lesse, if they willingly resign it to their Prince.
Answ. This is not true, when the power is given for the conservation of the Kingdom, and is abused for the destruction thereof, for a power to destruction was never given, nor can it by rational nature be given. 2. Mortifications given to religious uses by a positive law, may be recalled by a more divine and stronger law of nature, such as is this: I will have mercy and not sacrifice. Suppose David of his own proper heritage, had given the Show-bread to the Priests, yet when David and his men are famishing, he may take it back from them against their will. Suppose Christ man had bought the Corns, and dedicated them to the Altar, yet might he and his Disciples eat the Ears of Corn in their hunger. The vessels of silver dedicated to the Church, may be taken and bestowed on wounded Soldiers. 2. A people free may not, and ought not totally surrender their liberty to a Prince, confiding on his goodness; 1. Because liberty is a condition of nature, that all men are born with, and they are not to give it away,1 no not to a King, except in part, and for the better, that they may have peace and justice for it, which is better for them, hic & nunc. 2. If a people trusting in the goodness of their Prince, enslave themselves to him, and he shall after turn Tyrant; a rash and temerarious ⟨p. 120⟩