A57975:860
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.
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 1 Cor. 9. Paul would rather not take stipend, though it was due to him, then hinder the course of the Gospel. And the like is 1 Cor. 6. where the Corinthians were rather to suffer loss in their goods, then to go to Law before Infidel Judges, and by the like to prevent greater inconveniences, and mutilation, and death; the Christian servant hath that dominion over his members, rather to suffer buffets, then to ward off buffets with violent resistance. But it is no consequent that innocent subjects should suffer death of tyrants, and servants be killed by masters, and yet that they shall not be allowed by the law of nature to defend themselves, by re-offending, when only self-defence is intended, because we have not that dominion over life and death. And therefore as a man is his brothers murther•r, who, with froward Cain, will not be his brothers keeper, and may preserve his brothers life, without loss of his own life, when his brother is unjustly preserved; so when he may preserve his own life, and doth not that which Natures Law alloweth h•m to do, rather to kill ere he be killed, he is guilty of self-murder; because he is deficient in the duty of lawful self-defence. But I grant to offend or kill is not of the nature of defensive war, but accidental thereunto, and yet killing of cut-throats sent forth by the illegal commandment of the King may be intended, as a mean and a lawful mean of self-defence. 2.