A57975:193
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.
by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings, pa. 19.5. he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit, or reject Saul so designed. What meaneth he? it was not morally arbitrary, because they were under a law, Deut. 17.14, 15. to make him King, whom the Lord should choose. That is true, but was it not arbitrary to them to break a law Physically? I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so, but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary, either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King, because they had no action at all in the making of a King, God did it all, both by constituting and designing the ⟨p. 33⟩King, why then did God, Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King, not such a man, if it was not in their free will to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all? but that some sons of Belial would not accept him as their King, is expressly said, 1 Sam. 10.27. and how did Israel conspire with Absalom, to unking and dethrone David, whom the Lord had made King? If the Prelate mean it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul, he speaketh wonders, the sons of Belial did reject him; ergo they had physical power to do it: If he mean it was not arbitrary, that is, it was not lawful to them to reject him, that is true; but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King, because it was not lawful for them to make a King in a sinful way, and to refuse him whom God chose to be King? then see what I infer. 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King, because they sin in obeying unlawful commandments against Gods Law; and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King, the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith. 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patients, and have no action in violating all the Commandments of God, because it is not lawful to them to violate any one Commandment. (6) The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himself to choose the person, and to choose Saul. What then? ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man, because God anointed Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel; this consequence is nothing, & also it followeth in no wise, that therefore the people made not Saul King. 7.