A57975:874
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.
2. There is Tutela vitae proxima, & remota. 1A mere and immediate defence of our life, and a remote or mediate defence; when there is no actual invasion made by a man seeking our life, we are not to use violent re-offending. David might have killed Saul, when he was sleeping, and when he cut off the lap of his garment, but it was unlawful for him to kill the Lords Anointed, because he is the Lords Anointed, as it is unlawful to kill a man, because he is the Image of God, Gen. 9 6. except in case of necessity; The magistrate in case of necessity may kill the malefactor, thought his malefices do not put him in that case, that he hath not now the image of God;2 now prudency and light of grace determineth, When we are to use violent re-offending for self-preservation, it is not left to our pleasure. In a remote posture of self-defence, we are not to use violet re-offending, David having Saul in his hand was in a remote posture of defence, the unjust invasion then was not actual, not inavoidable, ⟨p. 330⟩not a necessary mean in human prudence for self-preservation, for King Saul was then in a habitual, not in an actual pursuit of the whole Princes, Elders and judges of Israel, or of a whole community and Church; Saul did but seek the life of one man, David, and that not for religion, or a national pretended offence, and therefore he could not in conscience put hands on the Lords anointed; but if Saul had actually invaded David for his life, David might in that case make use of Goliaths sword, (for he took not that weapon with him as a Cypher to boast Saul, it is no less unlawful to threaten a King then to put hands on him) and rather kill or be killed by Sauls emissaries: Because then he should have been in an immediate and nearest posture of actual self-defence. Now the case is far otherwise between the King, and the two Parliaments of England, and Scotland, for the King is not 1.
2. There is Tutela vitae proxima, & remota. 1A meer and immediat defence of our life, and a remote or mediat defence; when there is no actuall invasion made by a man seeking our life, we are not to use violent re-offending. David might have killed Saul, when he was sleeping, and when he cut off the lap of his garment, but it was unlawfull for him to kill the Lords Anointed, because he is the Lords Annoited, as it is unlawfull to kill a man, because he is the Image of God,