A57975:107
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.
QUEST. XXXI. Whether self-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawful, by the Law of God, and Nature? Affirm. p. 326, 327. Self-defence in man natural, but Modus, the way must be rational and just. p. 327. The method of self-defence. ibid. Violent re-offending in self-defence the last remedy. p. 328. Its Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion, and so they may resist in their own self-defence. p. 328. Tutela vitae proxima, and remota. p. 329. In a remote posture of self-defence, we are not to take us to re-offending, as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping, or in the Cave, for the same cause, ibid. David would not kill Saul, because he was the Lords Anointed, p. 330. The King not Lord of chastity, name, conscience, and so may be resisted, p. 331. By universal and particular nature, self-defence lawful, proved by divers Arguments, p. 330. And made good by the testimony of Jurists, p. 331. The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour, and enforceth self-defence, p. 332. Nature maketh a private man his own Judge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent, and violence is offered to his life, as the Law saith, p. 334, 335. Self-defence how lawful it is, p. 333, 334, 335. What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdoms, are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive wars, p. 336, 337. Offensive and defensive wars differ in the event and intentions of men, but not in nature and species, nor Physically. p. 336, 337, 338. Davids case in not killing Saul, nor his men, no rule to us, not in our ⟨image 18⟩lawful defence, to kill the Kings Emissaries, the cases far different, p. 338, 339.
QUEST. XXXI. Whether selfe-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawfull, by the Law of God, and Nature? Affirm. p. 326, 327. Self-defence in man naturall, but Modus, the way must be rationall and just. p. 327. The method of selfe-defence. ibid. Violent re-offending in selfe-defence the last remedy. p. 328. Its Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion, and so they may resist in their owne self-defence. p. 328. Tutela vitae proxima, and remota. p. 329. In a remote posture of selfe-defence, we are not to take us to re-offending, as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping, or in the Cave, for the same cause, ibid. David would not kill Saul, because he was the Lords Anoynted, p. 330. The King not Lord of chastity, name, conscience, and so may be resisted, p. 331. By universall and particular nature, selfe-defence lawfull, proved by divers Arguments, p. 330. And made good by the testimony of Iurists, p. 331. The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour, and inforceth selfe-defence, p. 332. Nature maketh a private man his owne Iudge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent, and violence is offered to his life, as the Law saith, p. 334, 335. Selfe-defence how lawfull it is, p. 333, 334, 335. What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdomes, are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive warrs, p. 336, 337. Offensive and defensive warrs differ in the event and intentions of men, but not in nature and spece, nor Physically. p. 336, 337, 338. Davids case in not killing Saul, nor his men, no rule to us, not in our