A57975:157
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.
4. Arg. Hence I argue: If there be no calling or title on earth to tie the Crown to such a Family and Person, but the suffrages of the people; then have the line of such a family, and the persons now, no calling of God, no right to the crown, but only by the suffrages of the people, except we say that there be no lawful Kings on earth now, when Prophetical unction and designation to Crowns are ceased, contrary to express Scripture, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
4. Arg. Hence I argue: If there be no calling or title on earth to tie the Crown to such a Familie and Person, but the suffrages of the people; then have the line of such a familie, and the persons now, no calling of God, no right to the crown, but only by the suffrages of the people, except we say that there be no lawfull Kings on earth now, when Propheticall unction and designation to Crowns are ceased, contrary to expresse Scripture, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 15, 16, 17.
But there is no title on earth now to tie crowns to families, to persons, but only the suffrages of the people: for, 1. Conquest without the consent of the people, is but royal latrocinie, as we shall see. 2. There is no prophetical and immediate calling to Kingdoms now. 3. The Lords giving of Regal parts is somewhat; but I hope Royalists will not deny but a child young in years and judgment, may be a lawful King. 3. Mr. Maxwell his appointing of the Kingly office, doth no more make one man a lawful King, then another: for this were a wide consequence. God hath appointed that Kings should be; ergo, John a Stiles is a King; yea, ergo, David is a King: It followeth not. Therefore it remaineth only, that the suffrages of the people of God is that just title and divine calling that Kings have now to their crowns. I presuppose they have gifts to govern from God.