A57975:290
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.
1. Assertion. A people may be by Gods special Commandment, subject to a conquering Nebuchadnezzar, and a Caesar, as to their King, as was Judah commanded by the Prophet Jeremiah to submit unto the yoke of the King of Babylon, and to pray for him, and the people of the Jews were to give to Caesar the things of Caesar; and yet both those were unjust conquerors: for those Tyrants had no command of God to oppress and reign over the Lords people, yet were they to obey those Kings, so the passive subjection was just and commanded of God, and the active unjust and tyrannous, and forbidden of God.
1. Assertion. A people may be by Gods speciall Commandement, subject to a conquering Nebuchadnezer, and a Caesar, as to their King, as was Iudah commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah to submit unto the yoake of the King of Babylon, and to pray for him, and the people of the Iewes were to give to Caesar the things of Caesar; and yet both those were unjust conquerours: for those Tyrants had no command of God to oppresse and raigne over the Lords people, yet were they to obey those Kings, so the passive subjection was just and commanded of God, and the active unjust and tyranous, and forbidden of God.
2. Assert. This title by conquest through the peoples after consent may be turned into a just title, as its like the case was with the Jews in Caesars time, for which cause our Saviour commanded to obey Caesar, and to pay tribute unto him; as Dr. Ferne confesseth. But two things are to be condemned in the Doctor:1 1. That God manifesteth his Will to us in this work of providence, whereby he translateth Kingdoms. 2. That this is an over-awed consent; now to the former I reply,2 if the act of conquering be violent and unjust, it is no manifestation of Gods regulating and approving Will, and can no more prove a just title to a Crown, because it is an act of Divine providence, then Pilate and Herod their crucifying of the Lord of Glory, which was an act of Divine providence, flowing from the Will and Decree of Divine providence,