A57975:910
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.
Ans. 1. He contradicteth the text, it was not a resistance by words, for the text saith they withstood him, and they thrust him out violently. 2. He yieldeth the cause, for to withdraw the holy things of God, by corporal violence, and violently to pull the censer out of his hand, that he should not provoke Gods wrath, by offering incense to the Lord is resistance, and the like violence may, by this example, be used, when the King useth the sword and the Militia to bring in an enemy to destroy the kingdom: it is no less in justice against the second table, that the King useth the sword to destroy the innocent, then to usurp the censor against the first table. But Doctor Ferne yieldeth that the censor may be pulled out of his hand, lest he provoke God to wrath. Ergo, by the same very reason, à fortiore, the Sword, the Castles, the Sea-ports, the Militia may be violently pulled out of his hand, for if there was an express Law that the leper should be put out of the congregation, and therefore the King also should be subject to his Church-censor, then he subjecteth the King to a punishment to be inflicted by the subjects, upon the King, Ergo the King is obnoxious to the coactive power of the law. 2. Ergo, subjects may judge him and punish him. 3. Ergo he is to be subject to all Church-censors, no less then the people. 4. There is an express law that the leper should be put out of the congregation. What then? flattering court Divines say the King is above all these laws, for there is an express law of God as express as that ceremonial on touching lepers, and a more binding law, that the murderer should die the death. Will Royalists put no exception upon a ceremonial law of expelling the leper, and yet put an exception upon a Divine moral law, concerning the punishing of murderers given before the law on Mount Sinai. Gen. 6.9. They so declare that they accept the persons of men. 5.
Ans. 1. He contradicteth the text, it was not a resistance by words, for the text saith they withstood him, and they thrust him out violently. 2. He yeeldeth the cause, for to withdraw the holy things of God, by corporall violence, and violently to pull the censer out of his hand, that he should not provoke Gods wrath, by offering incense to the Lord is resistance, and the like violence may, by this example, be used, when the King useth the sword and the Militia to bring in an enemy to destroy the kingdom: it is no lesse in justice against the second table, that the King useth the sword to destroy the innocent, then to usurpe the censor against the first table. But Doctor Ferne yeeldeth that the censor may be pulled out of his hand, lest he provoke God to wrath. Ergo, by the same very reason, à fortiore, the Sword, the Castles, the Sea-ports, the Militia may be violently pulled out of his hand, for if there was an expresse Law that the leper should be put out of the congregation, and therefore the King also should be subject to his Church-censor, then he subjecteth the King to a punishment to be inflicted by the subjects, upon the King, Ergo the King is obnoxious to the coactive power of the law. 2. Ergo, subjects may judge him and punish him. 3. Ergo he is to be subject to all Church-censors, no lesse then the people. 4. There is an expresse law that the leper should be put out of the congregation. What then? flattering court Divines say the King is above all these lawes, for there is an expresse law of God as expresse as that ceremoniall on touching lepers, and a more binding law, that the murtherer should die the death. Will Royalists put no exception upon a ceremoniall law of expelling the leper, and yet put an exception upon a Divine morall law, concerning the punishing of murtherers given before the law on Mount Sinai.