A57975:783
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.
Hence our second Assertion is, That the Kings power of exponing the Law, is a mere ministerial power,1 and he hath no dominion of any absolute Royal Power, to expone the Law as he will, and to put such a sense and meaning of the Law as he pleaseth.
Hence our second Assertion is, That the Kings power of exponing the Law, is a meere ministeriall power,1 and he hath no dominion of any absolute Royall Power, to expone the Law as he will, and to put such a sense and meaning of the Law as he pleaseth.
- 1The King not the authentic peremptory and Lordly interpreter of the Law.The King not the authentick peremtory and Lordly interpreter of the Law.
1. Because Saul maketh a Law, 1 Sam. 14.24. Cursed be the man that tasteth any food till night, that the King may be avenged on his enemies, the Law according to the letter was bloody,1 but according ⟨p. 452⟩to the intent of the Law-giver, and substance of the Law profitable, for the end was that the enemies should be pursued with all speed. But King Sauls exponing the Law after a Tyrannical way, against the intent of the Law, which is the Diamond and Pearl of all Laws, the safety of the innocent people, was justly resisted by the people, who violently hindered innocent Jonathan to be killed. Whence it is clear, that the people and Princes put on the Law its true sense and meaning, for Jonathans tasting of a little honey, though as it was against that sinful and precipitate circumstance a rash oath, yet it was not against the substance and true intent of the Law, which was the peoples speedy pursuit of the enemy. Whence it is clear, that the people including the Princes, hath a ministerial power to expone the Law aright, and according to its genuine intent, and that the King as King hath no absolute power to expone the Law as he pleaseth.