A57975:851
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.
2. Assertion. Neither suffering formally as suffering, and so neither can non-resisting passive fall under any moral law of God, except in two conditions:1 1. In the point of Christs passive obedience, he being the eternal God, as well as Man, and so Lord of his own blood and life, by virtue of a special commandment imposed on him by his Father, was commanded to lay down his life, yea and to be an Agent as well as a Patient in dying. Joh. 10.18. Yea and actively he was to contribute something for his own death, ⟨p. 315⟩and •ffer himself willingly to death, Mat. 28.20. And knowing the hour that he was to depart out of this world unto the Father,2 John 13.1. would not only not flee, which is to Royalists lawful, to us a special point of resistance, Joh. 14.31. Joh. 18.4, 5, 6, 7. and but upbraided Peter, as the Agent of Satan, who would dissuade him to die, Mat. 16.22, 23. and would fight for him. And he doth not fetch any argument against Peters drawing of his sword, from the unlawfulness of self-defence, and innocent resistance, (which he should have done, if Royalists plead with any colour of reason from his example, against the lawfulness of Resistance and self-defence) but from the absolute power of God. 2. From Gods positive will▪ w•o commanded him to die, Mat. 26.53, 54. if therefore Royalists prove any thing against the lawfulness of resisting Kings, when they offer (most unjustly) violence to the life of Gods servants, from thi one merely extraordinary and rare example of Christ, the like whereof was never in the world, they may from the same example prove it unlawful to flee; for Christ would not flee,