A57975:906
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. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul, for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawful fact, for that were all one, as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King; for if God had answered, They will not deliver thee up, but they shall save thee from the hand of Saul, As David believed he might say this, as well as its contradicent, then David behoved to keep the city, for certainly Davids question pre-supposeth he was to keep the city.
2. David certainly intended to keep Keilah against King Saul, for the Lord would not have answered David in an unlawfull fact, for that were all one, as if God should teach David how to play the Traitor to his King; for if God had answ•red, They will not deliver thee up, but they shall save thee from the hand of Saul, As David beleeved he might say this, as well as its contradicent, then David behoved to keep the city, for certainly Davids question pre-supposeth he was to keep the city.
1The example of Elisha the Prophet is considerable, 2 Kings 6.32. But Elisha sate in his house, and the Elders with him: And the King sent a man before him; but •re the messengers came to him, he said to the Elders, See now the sonn• of a murderer, hath sent to take away mine head. Here is unjust violence offered by King Joram to an innocent man. Elisha keepeth the house violently against the Kings Messenger, as we did keep Castles against King Charles his unlawful messengers. Look (saith he) when the messenger cometh, shut the door. 2. There is violence also commanded, and resistance ⟨p. 345⟩to be made, Hold him fast at the door. In the Hebrew it is, [Greek or Hebrew] Arias Montan. Claudite ostium, & opprimetis eum in ostio: Violently press him at the door: And so the Chaldee Paraphrase, Jerome. Ne sinatis eum introir. The LXX. Interpreters, [Greek or Hebrew], illidite eum in ostio, Press him betwixt the door and the wall. It is a word of bodily violence, according to Vatablus, Yea Theodoret will have King Joram himself holden at the door. And 3. It is no Answer that D. Ferne and other Royalists give, that Elisha made no personal resistance to the King himself, but only to the Kings cut-throat, sent to take away his head. Yea they say, It is lawful to resist the Kings cut-throats. But the text is clear, that the violent resistance is made to the King himself also, for he addeth, Is not the sound of his Masters feet behind him? And by this answer, it is lawful to keep Townes with iron gates and bars, and violently to oppose the Kings cut-throats, coming to take away the heads of the Parliaments of both Kingdoms, and of Protestants in the three Kingdoms.