A57975:599
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.
1Assert. 2. Nor can it be made good, that the King only hath power of making Laws; because his power were then absolute, to inflict penalties on Subjects, without any consent of theirs; and that were a dominion of Masters, who command what they please, and under what pain they please. And the people consenting to be ruled by such a man, they tacitly consent to penalty of laws, because natural reason saith, An ill-doer should be punished. Florianus in l. inde. Vasquez, l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they must have some power in making these laws.
1Assert. 2. Nor can it be made good, that the King only hath power of making Lawes; because his power were then absolute, to inflict penalties on Subjects, without any consent of theirs; and that were a dominion of Masters, who command what they please, and under what paine they please. And the people consenting to be ruled by such a man, they tacitely consent to penaltie of laws, because naturall reason saith, An ill-doer should be punished. Florianus in l. inde. Vasquez, l. 2. c. 55. n. 3. Therefore they must have some power in making these lawes.
- 1The King hath no Nomothetic power, his alone.The King hath no Nomothetick power, his alone.
2. Jer. 26. It is clear, The Princes judge with the people: A nomothetic power differeth gradually only from a judicial power, both being collateral means to the end of Government, the peoples safety. But Parliaments judge, ergo, they have a nomothetic power with the King.
2. Jer. 26. It is cleare, The Princes judge with the people: A nomothetick power differeth gradually only from a judiciall power, both being collaterall meanes to the end of Government, the peoples safetie. But Parliaments judge, ergo, they have a nomothetick power with the King.