A57975:628
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. 3. Ferne. Limitations and mixtures in Monarchies do not imply a forcible restraining power in subjects, 1for the preventing of the dissolution of the State, but only a legal restraining power; and if such a restraining power be in the subjects, by reservation, then it must be expressed in the constitution of the Government, and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people: but such a condition is unlawful, which will not have the Sovereign power secured, is unprofitable for King, and people; a seminary for seditions and jealousies.
Object. 3. Ferne. Limitations and mixtures in Monarchies do not imply a forceable restraining power in subjects, 1for the preventing of the dissolution of the State, but onely a legall restraining power; and if such a restraining power be in the subjects, by reservation, then it must be expressed in the constitution of the Government, and in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch and his people: but such a condition is unlawfull, which will not have the Soveraign power secured, is unprofitable for King, and people; a seminary for seditions and jealousies.
- 1Part. 3. sect. 5. pag. 39.
Answ. I understand not a difference betwixt forcible restraining and legal restraining: For he must mean by (legal) mans Law, ⟨p. 115⟩because he saith, It is a Law in the Covenant betwixt the Monarch, and his people. Now if this be not forcible, and physical,1 it is only Moral in the conscience of the King, and a Cypher, and a mere vanity, for God, not the people putteth a restraint of conscience on the King, that he may not oppress his poor subjects; but he shall sin against God, that is a poor restraint: the goodness of the King a sinful man inclined from the womb to all sin, and so to Tyranny, is no restraint. 2. There's no necessity, that the reserve be expressed in the Covenant between King, and people, more then in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife, beside her jointure; you should set down this clause in the contract, that if the husband attempt to kill the wife, or the wife the husband, in that case it shall be lawful to either of them to part companies: For Doct. Ferne saith, That personal defence is lawful in the people, if the Kings assault be 1. Sudden. 2. Without colour of Law. 3. Inevitable: Yet the reserve of this power of defence, is not necessarily to be expressed in the contract, betwixt King and people. Exigences of the Law of nature cannot be set down in positive Covenants, they are presupposed. 3. He saith, A reservation of power, whereby sovereignty is not secured, is unlawful. Lend me this Argument: The giving away of a power of defence, and a making the King absolute, is unlawful, because by it the people is not secured;