A57975:406
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.
but neither supplicating the King, nor flying from his fury shall be lawful means left by this Argument, because these means are no more in this text (where Royalists say the spirit ⟨p. 136⟩of God speaketh of purpose of the means to be used against Tyranny) then violent resisting, is in this text.
but neither supplicating the King, nor flying from his fury shall be lawfull meanes left by this Argument, because these meanes are no more in this text (where Royalists say the spirit ⟨p. 136⟩of God speaketh of purpose of the meanes to be used against Tyranny) then violent resisting, is in this text.
Barclay, Ferne, Grotius, Arnisaeus, the P. Prelate following them saith,1 An ill King is a punishment of God, for the sins of the people, and there is no remedy but patient suffering. Ans. Truly it is a silly Argument. The Assyrians coming against the people of God, for their sins, is a punishment of God, Esa. 10.5.12.13. But doth it follow that it is unlawful, for Israel to fight and resist the Assyrians, and that they had warrant to do no other thing, but lay down Arms, and pray to God, and fight none at all? Is there no lawful resisting of ills of punishment, but mere prayers and patience? The Amalekites came out against Israel for their sins, Sennacherib against Hezekiah, for the sins of the people. Asa his enemies fought against him for his sins, and the peoples sins; shall Moses and the people, Hezekiah, Asa, do then nothing but pray and suffer? Is it unlawful with the sword to resist them? I believe not, Famine is often a punishment of God in a Land, Amos. 4.7, 8. is it therefore in famine, unlawful to till the earth, and seek bread by our industry and are we to do nothing but to pray for daily bread? It is a vain Argument.