A57975:264
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.
M. Symons. A Prince once possessed of a Kingdom coming to him by inheritance, can never, by any, upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof, without horrible impiety, and unjustice. Royal unction was an indelible Character of old, Saul remained the Lords anointed till the last gasp; David durst not take the right of Government actually into him, although he had it in reversion, being already anointed thereunto, and had received the spirit thereof.
M. Symons. A Prince once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by inheritance, can never, by any, upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof, without horrible impietie, and unjustice. Royall unction was an indeleble Character of old, Saul remained the Lords anointed till the last gaspe; David durst not take the right of Government actually into him, although he had it in reversion, being already anointed thereunto, and had received the spirit thereof.
Answ. That is the question, If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance, cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice: For if a Kingdom be his by birth, as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son,1 I see not but any man upon necessary occasions, may sell his inheritance; but if a Prince sell his Kingdom, a very Barclay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say, he may be dispossessed and dethroned, and take up his indelible Character then. 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so, as it is unjustice to take it from him, as to take a mans purse from him; the Lords Church (in a Christian Kingdom) is Gods heritage, and the King only a shepherd, and the sheep in the court of conscience, are not his. 3. Royal unction is not an indelible Character; for neither Saul nor David were all their days Kings thereby, but lived many days private men after divine unction, while the people anointed them Kings, except you say, 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel. 2. And that Saul killing David, should have killed ⟨p. 75⟩his own Lord, and his anointed. 4. If David durst not take the right of Government actually on him, then divine unction made him not King, but only designed him to be King: the peoples election must make the King.