A57975:262
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.
5. If royal birth be as just a title to the Crown as divine unction, and so, as the peoples election is no title at all; then is it unlawful that there should be a King by election in the world now: but the latter is absurd, so is the former. I prove the Proposition, because where conquerors are wanting, and there is no King for the present, but the people governing, and so much confusion aboundeth, they cannot lawfully appoint a King, for his lawful title before God must either be conquest, which to me is no title, (and here, and in this case there is no conquest) or if the title must be a Prophetical word immediately inspired by God, but this is now ceased; or thirdly the title must be royal birth, but here there is no royal birth, because the government is popular; except you imagine that the society is obliged in conscience to go and seek the son of a foreign King to be their King. But I hope that such a royal birth should not be a just title before God to make him King of that society, to which he had no relation at all, but is a mere stranger. Hence in this case no title could be given to any man to make him King, but only the peoples election; which is that which we say. And it is most unreasonable that a people under popular Government cannot lawfully choose a King to themselves, seeing a King is a lawful Magistrate, and warranted by Gods Word, because they have not a King of royal birth to sit upon the throne.
5. If royall birth be as just a title to the Crowne as divine unction, and so, as the peoples election is no title at all; then is it unlawfull that there should be a King by election in the world now: but the latter is absurd, so is the former. I prove the Proposition, because where conquerours are wanting, and there is no King for the present, but the people governing, and so much confusion aboundeth, they cannot lawfully appoint a King, for his lawfull title before God must either be conquest, which to me is no title, (and here, and in this case there is no conquest) or if the title must be a Propheticall word immediatly inspired by God, but this is now ceased; or thirdly the title must be royal birth, but here there is no royall birth, because the government is popular; except you imagine that the society is obliged in conscience to goe and seek the sonne of a forraine King to be their King. But I hope that such a royall birth should not be a just title before God to make him King of that society, to which he had no relation at all, but is a meere stranger. Hence in this case no title could be given to any man to make him King, but onely the peoples election; which is that which we say. And it is most unreasonable that a people under popular Government cannot lawfully choose a King to themselves, seeing a King is a lawfull Magistrate, and warranted by Gods Word, because they have not a King of royall birth to sit upon the throne.