A57975:399
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.
and to oppress a subject, is from God, and so must be a lawful power; but the conclusion is absurd, the assumption is the doctrine of Barclay: The major proposition I prove. 1. Because both the Judge and the King was from God, for God gave Moses a lawful calling to be a Judge, so did he to Eli, to Samuel, and Deut. 17.15. the King is a lawful Ordinance of God: If then the Judge and the King, be both lawful Ordinances, and if they differ essentially, as Barclay saith; then that specifice form which distinguisheth the one from the other, to wit, Domination and a power to destroy the subject, must be from God, which is blasphemous; for God can give no moral power to do wickedly; for that is licence, and a power to sin against a Law of God, which is absolutely inconsistent with the holiness of God; for so the Lord might deny himself, and dispense with sin (God avert such blasphemies.) Now if the kingly power be from God, That which essentially and specifically constituteth a King, must be from God, as the Office it self is from God: And (d)Barclay saith expressly; That the kingly power is from God, and that same which is the specifice form, that constituteth a King, must be that which essentially separateth the King from the Judge, if they be essentially different, as Barclay dreameth. Hence have we this jus Regis, this Manner or Law of the King, to tyrannize and oppress, to be a power from God, and so a lawful power; by which you shall have this result of Barclay's interpretation, That God made a Tyrant as well as a King. 3. By this difference that Barclay putteth betwixt the King and the Judge, the Judge might be resisted; for he had not this power of domination, that Saul hath, contrary to Rom. 13.2. Exod. 22.28. and 20.12.
and to oppresse a subject, is from God, and so must be a lawfull power; but the conclusion is absurd, the assumption is the doctrine of Barclay: The major proposition I prove. 1. Because both the Iudge and the King was from God, for God gave Moses a lawfull calling to be a Iudge, so did he to Eli, to Samuel, and