A57975:949
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.
Answ. Rivetus, Exo. 22. learnedly discussing the place, thinketh Paul, professing he knew him not to be the High-Priest, speaketh ironically, that he could not acknowledge such a man for a Judge. Piscator answereth, he could not then cite Scripture, It is written, Exod. &c. Ans. But they may well consist, in that act of smiting Paul unjustly, he might be reproached, otherwise it is not lawful to reproach him; and surely it is not like that Paul was ignorant that he was a Judge. Yea it is certain he knew him to be a Judge. ⟨p. 360⟩1. He appeared before him as a Judge, to answer for himself. 2. Paul saith expressly he was a Judge, ver. 3. Sittest thou to judge me after the Law? &c. and therefore the place is for us, for even according to the mind of all, the fault was (if there were any) in calling him a whited wall: and he resisted him in judgement, when he said, Commandest thou me to be smitten against the Law? 2. Though Royalists rather put a fault on the Apostle Paul now in the act of prophesying judgement against Ananias, which after fell out, then upon their God the King; yet the consequence amounteth but to this, We may not revile the High Priest, Ergo we may not resist the King in his illegal commandments. It followeth not. Yea it should prove, if a Prelate come in open war to kill the innocent Apostle Paul, the Apostle might fly or hold his hands, but might not re-offend: Now the Prelate is the High Priests successor, and his base person so is as sacred as the person of the Lords Anointed, the King. Hence the Cavaliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston, Jul. 2. An. 1644 the Crown and the Prelates Mitre painted with these words, Nolite tangere Christos meos, as if the Antichristian Mitre were as sacred as the lawful Crown of the King of Britain.