A57975:820
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.
QUEST. XXIX. Whether, in the case of Defensive war, the distinction of the person of the King, as a man, who can commit acts of hostile Tyranny against his Subjects: and of the Office and Royal power that he hath from God, and the People, as a King; can have place?
QUEST. XXIX. Whether, in the case of Defensive warre, the distinction of the person of the King, as a man, who can commit acts of hostile Tyrannie against his Subjects: and of the Office and Royall power that he hath from God, and the People, as a King; can have place?
Before I can proceed to other Scripture-proofs for the lawfulness of Resistance; this Distinction, rejected by Royalists,1 must be cleared. This is an evident and sensible distinction: The King in concreto, the Man who is King; And the King in abstracto, the Royal office of the King. The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from, Rom. 13. we affirm with Buchanan, that Paul, Rom. 13, speaketh of the office and duty of good Magistrates, and that the text speaketh nothing of an absolute King, nothing of a Tyrant; and the Royalists distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not, against the Law, l. pret. 10. gl. Bart. de pub. in Rem. and therefore we move the question here, Whether or no to resist the illegal and Tyrannical will of the man, who is King, be to resist the King, and the ordinance of God, we say no: Nor do we deny the King, abusing his power in unjust acts, to remain King, and the Minister of God, whose person for his royal office, and his Royal Office both are to be honoured, reverenced and obeyed. God forbid that we should do so as the sons of Belial, imputing to us the doctrine of Anabaptists, and the doctrine falsely imputed to Wycliffe, That Dominion is founded upon supernatural grace, and that a Magistrate being in the state of mortal sin, cannot be a lawful Magistrate; we teach no such thing. The P. Prelate showeth us his sympathy with Papists, and that he buildeth the Monuments and Sepulchres of the slain and murdered Prophets, when he refusing to open his mouth in the Gates for the righteous, professeth he will not purge the Witnesses of Christ, the Waldenses and Wycliffe,