A57975:767
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.
Lex, Rex. › Question 26: QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no?
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.
2. The Prelate must prove that God gave a Royal and Kingly power to King Pharaoh, due to him by virtue of his Kingly calling, (according as Royalists expone 1 Sam. 8.9, 11.) to kill all the male children of Israel, to make slaves of themselves, and compel them to work in brick and clay, while their lives were a burden to them: And that if a Romish Catholic, Mary of England, should kill all the male Children of Protestants, by the hands of Papists, at the Queens commandment, and make bondslaves of all the Peers, Judges, and three Estates, who made her a free Princess: yet notwithstanding that Mary had sworn to maintain the Protestant Religion; they were to suffer, and not to defend themselves. But if God give Pharaoh a power to kill all Israel, so as they could not control it; then God giveth to a King a Royal power by office to sin: only the Royalist saveth God from being the author of sin, in this, that God gave the power to sin, but yet with this limitation, that the Subjects should not resist this power. 2. He must prove ⟨p. 247⟩that Israel was to give their Male-children to Pharaohs Butchers, for to hide them, was to resist a Royal power, and to disobey a Royal power given of God, is to disobey God. 3. The Subjects may not resist the Kings Butchers coming to kill them, and their Male-children, For to resist the servant of the King in that, wherein he is a servant, is to resist the King, 1 Sam. 8.7. 1 Pet. 2.14. Rom. 13.1. 4. He must prove that upon the supposition, That Israel had been as strong as Pharaoh and his people; that without Gods special commandment (they then wanting the written Word) they should have fought with Pharaoh; and that we now for all wars, must have a word from Heaven, as if we had not Gods perfect Will in his Word, as at that time Israel behoved to have in all wars, Judg. 18.5. 1 Sam. 14.37.