A57975:256
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.
a pattern to all others, and Paul reduceth the right administration of the Supper to Christs first institution, 1 Cor. 11.23. now the first King, Deut. 17.14, 15. is not a man qualified by naked birth, for then the Lord in describing the manner of the King and his due qualifications, should seek no other but this; You shall choose only the first borne, or the lawful son of the former King. But seeing the King of Gods first moulding is a King by election, and what God did after by promises and free grace give to David and his seed, even a throne till the Messiah should come,1 and did promise to some Kings, if they would walk in his Commandments; that their sons, and sons son should sit upon the Throne, in my judgement is not an obliging Law, that sole birth should be as just a title, in foro Dei, (for I now dispute the question in point of conscience) as royal unction. 2. If by divine institution God have impawned in the peoples hand a subordinate power to the most High, who giveth Kingdoms to whom he will, to make and create Kings, then is not sole birth a just title to the Crown. But the former is true; both by precept, Deut. 17.1. and God expressly saith, Thou shalt choose him King, whom the Lord shall choose. And if it had not been the peoples power to create their own Kings, how doth God after he had designed Saul their King, yet expressly 1 Sam. 10. inspire Samuel 17. to call the people before the Lord at Mizpeh, to make Saul King? and how doth the Lord v. 22. expressly show to Samuel, and the people, the man that they might make him King? and because all consented not that Saul should be King, God will have his Coronation renewed, v. 14. Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgall, and renew the Kingdom there. 15. And all the people went to Gilgall, and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgall. And how is it that David anointed by God is yet no King, but a private subject, while all Israel make him King at Hebron?
a paterne to all others, and Paul reduceth the right administration of the Supper to Christs first institution,