A57975:285
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. XII. Whether or not a Kingdom may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest?
QUEST. XII. Whether or not a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest?
The Prelate averreth confidently that a Title to a Kingdom by Conquest,1 without the consent of the people, is so just and evident by Scripture, that it cannot be denied; but the man bringeth no Scripture to prove it. Mr. Marshall saith, a conquered Kingdom is but continuata injuria, 2a continued robbery. A right of conquest is twofold; 1. When there is no just cause. 2. When there is just reason and ground of the war;3 in this latter case, if a Prince subdue a whole Land, which justly deserveth to dye, yet by his grace who is so mild a conqueror they may be all preserved alive. Now amongst those who have thus injured the conqueror as they deserve death, we are to difference the persons offending, and the wives, children especially not borne, and such as have not offended. The former sort may resign their personal liberty to the conqueror, that the sweet life may be saved; but he cannot be their King properly, but I conceive that they are obliged to consent that he be their King, upon this condition, that the conqueror put not upon them violent and tyrannical conditions that are harder then death now in reason we cannot think that a tyrannous and unjust domineering can be God• lawful mean of translating Kingdoms, and for the other part; the ⟨p. 83⟩conqueror cannot domineer as King over the innocent, and especially the children not yet borne.