A57975:859
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.
Any mean not used for preventing death, must be an act of revenge, not of self-defence, for it is physically unsuitable for the intended end of self-defence. And so for a servant buffeted, to buffet again, is of the same nature: the second buffet not being a conducible mean to ward the first buffet, but a mean to procure heavier strokes and possibly killing, it cannot be an act of self defence, for an act of self defence must be an act destinated ex natura rei, only for defence, and if it be known to be an act of sole offending, without any known necessary relation of a mean to self-defence as the end, it cannot be properly an act of self-defence.
Any mean not used for preventing death, must be an act of revenge, not of self-defence, for it is physically unsu•able for the intended end of self-defence. And so for a servant buffeted, to buffet againe, is of the same nature: the second buffet not being a conducible meane to ward the first buffet, but a meane to procure heavier stroakes and possibly killing, it cannot be an act of self defence, for an act of self defence must be an act destinated ex natura rei, onely for defence, and if it be known to be an act of sole offending, without any known necessary relation of a mean to self-defence as the end, it cannot be properly an act of self-defence.
Assert. 4. When the matter is lighter, as in paying tribute, or suffering a buffet of a rough master, though unjustly, we are not to use any act of re-offending.1 For though I be not absolute Lord of my own goods, and so may not at my sole pleasure give tribute and expend monies to the hurting of my children, where I am not by Gods Law or Mans Law obliged to pay tribute; and though I be not an absolute Lord of my members, to expose face, and cheeks, and back to stripes and whips at my own mere will, yet have ⟨p. 322⟩we a comparative dominion given to us of God in matters of goods, and disposing of our members, (I think I may except the case of mutilation, which is a little death) for buffets, because Christ no doubt to teach us the like, would rather give of his goods, and pay tribute, where it is not due, then that this scandal lay on the way of Christ, that Christ was no loyal subject to lawful Emperors and Kings. And