A57975:869
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.
QUEST. XXXI. Whether or no self-defence against any unjust violence offered to the life, be warranted by Gods Law, and the Law of Nature and Nations?
Self-preservation in all creatures in which is nature, is in the creatures suitable to their nature: The Bull defendeth it self by its horns,1 the Eagle by her claws and bill, it will not follow ⟨p. 327⟩that a Lamb will defend it self against a Wolfe any other way, then by flying. So men, and Christian men do naturally defend themselves; but the manner of self-defence in a rational creature, is rational, and not always merely natural: therefore a politic community, being a combination of many natures, as neither grace, far less can policy destroy nature, then must these many natures be allowed of God to use a natural self-defence. If the King bring in an Army of foreigners, then a politic community must defend it self in a rational way; Why? Self-defence is natural to Man, and natural to a Lamb, but not the same way; A Lamb or a Dove naturally defend themselves against beasts of another kind, only by flight, not by re-action and re-offending: But it followeth not that a man defendeth himself from his enemy only by flight; If a robber invade me, to take away my life and my purse, I may defend my s•lfe by re-action; for reason and grace both may determine the way of self-preservation: Hence Royalists say, a private man against his Prince, hath no way to defend himself, but by flight; Ergo, a community hath no other way to defend themselves, but by flight. 1. The antecedent is false.2 Dr. Ferne alloweth to a private man supplications, and denying of Subsidies, and Tribute to the Prince, when he employeth Tribute to the destruction of the Common-wealth; which by the way, is a clear resistance, and an active resistance made against the King, Rom. 13.6, 7