A57975:893
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.
1Answ. There is no defensive war different in species and nature from an offensive war, if we speak physically, they differ only in the event and intention of the heart, and it is most clear that the affection and intention doth make one and the same action of taking away the life, either homicide, or no homicide: If a man out of hatred deliberately take away his brothers life, he is a murderer catenus, but if that same man had taken away that same brothers life, by th• •lying off o• an Axe he•d of• the staff, while he was hewing timber, he neither hating him before, nor intending to hurt his brother, he is no murderer, by Gods express Law, Deut. 4.42. Deut. 19 4. Joshua 20.5. 2. The cause between the King and the two Parliaments, and between Saul and David, are so different in this, as it is much for us: Royalists say, David might if he had seen offending to conduce for s•lfe-preservation, have invaded Sauls men, and say they, the case was extraordinary, and bindeth not us to self-defence; and thus they must say; for offensive weapons, such as Goliaths sword, and an host of armed men, cannot by any rational men be assumed (and David had the wisdom of God) but to offend, if providence should so dispose; and so what was lawful to David, is lawful to us in self-defence, he might offend lawfully, and so may we.
1Answ. There is no defensive warre different in spece and nature from an offensive warre, if we speake physically, they differ onely in the event and intention of the heart, and it is most cleare that the affection and intention doth make one and the same action of taking away the life, either homicide, or no homicide: If a man out of hatred deliberat•ly take away his brothers life, he is a murtherer catenus, but if that same man had taken away that same brothers life, by th lying off o an Axe hed of the staffe, while he was hewing timber, he neither hating him before, nor intending to hurt his brother, he is no murtherer, by Gods expresse Law,