A57975:828
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.
I answer these learned Authors, from which he stealeth all he hath, and yet he must persuade the King, he is the only man can defend his Majesties Cause, and the importunity, forsooth, of friends extorted this piece, as if it were a fault, that this Delphic Oracle (giving out railings, and lies for responses) should be silent. 2. Not ⟨p. 271⟩we only, but the Holy Ghost, in terminis, hath this distinction, Act. 4.19. and 5.29. We ought to obey God rather then men. Them Rulers (for of Rulers sitting in judgement is that speech uttered) commanding and tyrannizing over the Apostles, are men contradistinguished from God; and as they command and punish unjustly, they are but men, otherwise commanding for God, they are Gods, and more then men. 2. From Theophylact also, or from Chrysostom, on Rom. 13. we have this; The Apostle speaketh not (say they) [Greek or Hebrew]. 3. Sovereignty or Royalty, doth not properly reign or bear the sword, or receive praise, and this accident doth not bear a sword; nor do we think, or Paul speak, Rom. 13. of the abstracted Jew of power and Royalty, subsisting out of its subject; nor dream we, that the naked accident of Royal Authority, is to be feared and honoured as the Lords anointed; the person or man who is the King, and beareth the Crown on his head, and holdeth the sceptre in his hand, is to be obeyed; accidents are not persons, but they speak non-sense, and like brute beasts, who deny that all the kingly honour due to the King, must be due to him as a King, and because of the Royal dignity that God hath given to him, and not because he is a man; for a Pursuivants son is a man, and if a Pursuivants son would usurp the throne, and take the Crown on his head, and the sceptre in his hand, and command that all souls be subject to such a superior Power, because he is a man, the Laws of Scotland would hang a man for a less fault, we know: and the P. Prelate was wont to edify women, and converted souls to Christ, with such a distinction as objectum quod, and objectum quo, in the Pulpits of Edinburgh, and it hath good use here, we never took abstract Royalty to be the King. The Kings of Scotland of old were not second notions, and we exclude not the person of the King, yet we distinguish with leave of the P.