A57975:776
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. XXVII. Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and final interpreter of the Law?
QUEST. XXVII. Whether or no the King be the sole supreme and finall interpreter of the Law?
This Question conduceth not a little to the clearing of the doubts concerning the Kings absolute power, and the supposed sole nomothetic power in the King. And I think it not unlike to the question, whether the Pope and Romish Church have a sole and peremptory power of exponing Laws, and the Word of God? We are to consider that there is a twofold exposition of Laws, one speculative in a School way, so exquisite Jurists have a power to expone Laws.1 2. Practical, in so far as the sense of the Law falleth under our Practice, and this is twofold; either private and common to all, or judicial and proper to Judges, and of this last is the question.
THis Question conduceth not a little to the clearing of the doubts concerning the Kings absolute power, and the supposed sole nomothetick power in the King. And I thinke it not unlike to the question, whether the Pope and Romish Church havt a sole and peremptory power of exponing Lawes, and the Word of God? We are to consider that therr is a twofold exposition of Lawes, one speculative in a Schoole way, so exquisite Iurists have a power to expone Lawes.1 2. Practicall, in so farre as the sense of the Law falleth under our Practice, and this is twofold; either private and common to all, or judiciall and proper to Iudges, and of this last is the question.
- 1A twofold exposition of Laws.A twofold exposition of Lawes.