A57975:863
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.
D. Ferne, p. 3. sect. 2. pag. 9. addeth, Personal defence is lawful against sudden and illegal invasion, such as Elisha practiced, even if it ⟨p. 324⟩were against the Prince to ward blows, and to hold the Princes hand, but not to return blows, 1but general resistance by Arms, cannot be without many unjust violences, and doth immediately strike at the order, which is the life of the Common-wealth.
D. Ferne, p. 3. sect. 2. pag. 9. addeth, Personall defence is lawfull against sudden and illegall invasion, such as Elisha practiced, even if it ⟨p. 324⟩were against the Prince to ward blowes, and to hold the Princes hand, but not to returne blowes, 1but generall resistance by Armes, cannot be without many unjust violences, and doth immediatelie strike at the order, which is the life of the Common-wealth.
- 1D. Ferne acknowledgeth violent resisting to be lawful, but not defensive warsD. Ferne acknowledgeth violent resisting to be lawfull, but not defensive warres
Answ. If it be natural to one man to defend himself against the personal invasion of a Prince, then is it natural and warrantable to ten thousand, and to a whole Kingdom; and what reason to defraud a Kingdom of the benefit of self-defence, more then one man? Neither grace nor policy destroyeth nature: and how shall ten or twenty thousand be defended against Cannons and Muskets that killeth afar off, except they keep Townes against the King, which D. Ferne and others say had been treason in David, if he had kept Keilah against King Saul, except they be armed to offend, with weapons of the like nature to kill rather then be killed, as the Law of nature teacheth. 3. To hold the hands of the Prince is no less resisting violence, then to cut the lap of his garment, which Royalists think unlawful, and is an opposing of external force to the Kings person.