A57975:246
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.
P. Prelate. Then this super-intending power in people, may call a King to account, and punish him for any misdemeanour, or act of injustice. Why might not the people of Israels Peers, or Sanhedrin have convented David before them, judged and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba, and his murder of Uriah▪ but it is holden by all, that Tyranny should be an intended universal, total, manifest destruction of the whole Common-wealth, which cannot fall in the thoughts of any but a mad man. What is recorded in the Story of Nero his wish in this kind, may be rather judged the expression of transported passion, then a fixed resolution.
P. Prelate. Then this super-intending power in people, may call a King to accompt, and punish him for any misdemeanour, or act of injustice. Why might not the people of Israels Peeres, or Sanedrin have convented David before them, judged and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba, and his murther of Uriah▪ but it is holden by all, that Tyranny should be an intended universall, totall, manifest destruction of the whole Common-wealth, which cannot fall in the thoughts of any but a mad man. What is recorded in the Story of Nero his wish in this kind, may be rather judged the expression of transported passion, then a fixed resolution.
Ans. The P. Prelate contrary to the scope of his book, which is ⟨p. 64⟩all for the subject and seat of Sovereign power, against all order hath plunged himself in the deep of Defensive arms, and yet hath no new thing. 1. Our law of Scotland will warrant any subject, if the King take from him his heritage, or invade his possession against Law, to resist the invaders, and to summon the Kings intruders before the Lords of Session for that act of injustice: Is this against Gods Word, or Conscience? 2. The Sanhedrin did not punish David; Ergo, it is not lawful to challenge a King for any one act of injustice: from the practice of the Sanhedrin, to conclude a thing lawful or unlawful, is logic; we may resist. 3. By the P. Prelates doctrine, the law might not put Bathsheba to death, nor yet Joab the nearest agent of the murdering of innocent Uriah,