A57975:864
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.
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.1 4. It is true, wars merely defensive cannot be but they must be offensive, but they are offensive by accident, and intended for mere defence, and they cannot be without wars sinfully offensive, nor can any wars be in rerum naturâ now, (I except the wars commanded by God, who only must have been sinful in the manner of doing) but some innocent must be killed; but wars cannot for that be condemned. 5. Neither are offensive wars against these who are no powers and no ordinances of God, such as are cut-throat Irish, condemned Prelates and Papists now in Arms, more destructive to the order established by God, then acts of lawful war are, or the punishing of robbers; and by all this Protestants in Scotland and England, should remain in their houses unarmed, while the Papists and Irish come on them armed and cut their throats, and spoil and plunder at will.
Answ. If it be naturall to one man to defend himself against the personall invasion of a Prince, then is it naturall and warrantable to ten thousand, and to a whole Kingdome; and what reason to defraud a Kingdome 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 Musquets that killeth afar off, except they keepe Townes against the King, which D. Ferne and others say had beene 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 lesse resisting vi•lence, then to cut the lap of his garment, which Royalists think unlawfull, and is an opposing of externall force to the Kings person.