A57975:861
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.
Of two ills of punishment, we have a comparative dominion over our selves, a man may cast his goods in the sea to redeem his life. So for to redeem peace, we may suffer buffets, but because death is the greatest ill of punishment, God hath not made it eligible to us, when lawful self defence is at hand; But in defending our own life against Tyrannical power, though we do it by offending and killing, we resist no ordinance of God, only I judge killing of the King in self-defence not lawful, because self-defence must be national, on just causes. Let here the reader judge, Barcley l. 3. c. 8. pag. 159. con. Monar. If the King (saith he) shall vex the Common-wealth or one part thereof, with great and intolerable cruelty; what shall the people do? they have ⟨p. 323⟩(saith he) in that case a power to resist and defend themselves from injury, but only to defend themselves, not to invade the Prince, 1nor to resist the injury, or to recede from reverence due to the Prince. I answer 1. Let Barclay or the prelate (if he may carry Barclay's books) or any, difference these two, the people may resist a Tyrant, but they may not resist the injuries inflicted by a Tyrants officers & cut-throats. I cannot imagine how to conciliate these two: for to resist the cruelty of a King, is but to hold off the injury by resistance. 2. If this Nero waste the Common-wealth unsufferably with his cruelty, and remain a lawful King, to be honoured as a King, who may resist him, according to Royalists way? but from Rom. 13. they resist the Ordinance of God. 3. Resisting is not a mere suffering, nor is it a moral resisting by alleging l•wes to be broken by him. We had never a question with Royalists about such resisting. 2. Nor is this resisting non-obedience to unjust commandments; that resisting was never yet in question, by any, except the Papists, who in good •arnest, by consequent, say, It is better to obey men, then God. 3. It is then resisting by bodily violence; but if the King have such an absolute power given him by God, as Royalists fancy from Rom. 13.1, 2. 1 Sam. 8