Skip to content

Title page of A treatise of civil policy, London, 1656

A92147:1012

A treatise of civil policy

A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and privilege, in reference to the supreme prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divinity of St Andrews in Scotland.A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and priviledge, in reference to the supream prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divintiy of St Andrews in Scotland.

Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661London, : Printed and are to be sold by Simon Miller at the Star in St Pauls Church-yard near the West end., 1657 i.e. 1656

[34], 438 p. · 210k words · Wing R2396 · ESTC R207911

Title page typeset from the transcription.

Lex, Rex. › Question 35: QUEST. XXXV. Whether or no the suffering of the Martyrs in the Primitive Church militat…

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.

[ Earlier:1009–1024 of 1,374

:1009p. 371

Object. 3. Cyprian Epist. 56. Incumbamus gemitibus assiduis & deprecationibus crebris, haec enim sunt munimenta spiritualia & tela divina quae protegunt: And Russinus, l. 2. c. 6. Ambrosius adversus reginae (Justinae Arianae) furorem non se manu defensabat aut telo, sed jejuniis continuatisque vigiliis sub altari positus.

Object. 3. Cyprian Epist. 56. Incumbamus gemitibus assiduis & deprecationibus crebris, haec enim sunt munimenta spiritualia & tela divina quae protegunt: And Russinus, l. 2. c. 6. Ambrosius adversus reginae (Iustinae Arianae) furorem non se manu defensabat aut telo, sed jejuniis continuatisque vigiliis sub altari positus.

:1010p. 371

Answ. It is true, Cyprian reputed prayers his armour, but not his only armour. Though Ambrose, de facto, used no other against Justina; the places say nothing against the lawfulness of self-defence. Ambrose speaketh of that armour and these means of defence, that are proper to Pastors, and these are prayers and tears, not the sword; because Pastors carry the Ark, that is their charge, not the sword, that is the Magistrates place.

Answ. It is true, Cyprian reputed prayers his armour, but not his onely armour. Though Ambrose, de facto, used no other against Iustina; the places say nothing against the lawfulnesse of selfe-defence. Ambrose speaketh of that armour and these meanes of defence, that are proper to Pastors, and these are prayers and teares, not the sword; because Pastors carry the Arke, that is their charge, not the sword, that is the Magistrates place.

:1011p. 371

Object. 4. Tertullian Apolog. c. 37. saith expressly, that the Christians might for strength and number have defended themselves against their persecutors, but thought it unlawful. Quando vel una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ul•ionis po et operari, si malum malo dispungi penes nos liceret, sed absit ut igni humano vindicetur divina secta, aut doleat pati, in quo probetur. Si enim hostes extraneos, non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus, deesset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum?

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

Position

Cited: :1012
On this page: :1009–1024
Section: :997–1013
Whole work: 1,374 passages

Cite

Samuel Rutherford, A treatise of civil policy (London,, 1656), q. 35, pp. 371–372. EEBO-TCP A92147.

Or select words in any passage to make an image of them.

The book

Title as printed: A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and privilege, in reference to the supreme prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divinity of St Andrews in Scotland.A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and priviledge, in reference to the supream prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divintiy of St Andrews in Scotland.
Author: Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661
Place: London
Year: 1656
Imprint: London, : Printed and are to be sold by Simon Miller at the Star in St Pauls Church-yard near the West end., 1657 [i.e. 1656]
Size: [34], 438 p.
Words: 210,399
Catalogue: Wing R2396 · ESTC R207911
Text: EEBO-TCP A92147

Passages: 1,374
Sections: 50

The author

Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661

PuritansScotland

Scottish theologian and commissioner to the Westminster Assembly.

:1012p. 371–372

Answ. I will not go about to say that Tertullian thought it lawful to raise Arms against the Emperor; I ingeniously confess Tertullian was in that error. But, 1. something of the man. 2. Of¹ the Christians. Of the man. Tertullian after this turned a Montanist. 2. Pamelius saith of him, in vit. Tertul. inter Apocrypha numeratur—excommunicatus. 3. It was Tertullians error in a fact, not in a question, that he believed Christians were so numerous, as that they might have fought with the Emperors. 4. M. Pryn doth judiciously observe, 3. part. sovereign power of Parl. pag. 139, 140. He not only thought it unlawful to resist, but also to flee, and therefore wrote a book de fuga, and therefore as some men are excessive in doing for Christ, so also in suffering for Christ; Hence I infer, that Tertullian is neither ours, nor theirs in this point; and we can cite Tertullian against them also, I am sumus ergo pares. Yea Fox in his Monum. saith, Christians ran to the stakes to be burnt, when they were neither condemned, nor cited. 4. What if we cite Theodoret, fol. 98. De provid. Who about that time say that evil men reign, [Greek or Hebrew] through the cowardliness of the subjects; ⟨p. 372⟩as the Prelate saith of Tertullian, I turn it, If Theodoret were² now living, he would go for a Rebel. About that time Christians sought help from Constantine the Great, against Lycinius their Emperor, and overthrew him in battle. And the Christians being oppressed by the King of Persia their own King, sent to Theodosius to help them against him. 2. For the man. Tertullian in the place cited, saith, The Christians were strangers under the Emperor. Externi sumus, and therefore they had no Laws of their own, but were under the Civill Laws of Heathen, till Constantine's time; and they had sworn to Julian as his soldiers, and therefore might have, and no doubt had, scruples of conscience to resist the Emperor. 2. It is known Julian had huge numbers of Heathen in his Army, and to resist had been great danger. 3. Wanting Leaders and Commanders, (many prime men doubting of the lawfulness thereof) though they had been equal in number, yet number is not all in war, skill in valorous Commanders is required. 4. What if all Christians were not of Tertullians mind. 5.

Answ. I will not goe about to say that Tertullian thought it lawfull to raise Armes against the Emperour; I ingeniously confesse Tertullian was in that errour. But, 1. something of the man. 2. Of¹ the Christians. Of the man. Tertullian after this turned a Montanist. 2. Pamelius saith of him, in vit. Tertul. inter Apocrypha numeratur—excommunicatus. 3. It was Tertullians error in a fact, not in a question, that he believed Christians were so numerous, as that they might have fought with the Emperours. 4. M. Pryn doth judiciously observe, 3. part. soveraigne power of Parl. pag. 139, 140. He not onely thought it unlawfull to resist, but also to flee, and therefore wrote a booke de fuga, and therefore as some men are excessive in doing for Christ, so also in suffering for Christ; Hence I inferre, that Tertullian is neither ours, nor theirs in this point; and we can cite Tertullian against them also, I am sumus ergo pares. Yea Fox in his Monum. saith, Christians ranne to the stakes to be burnt, when they were neither condemned, nor cited. 4. What if wee cite Theodoret, fol. 98. De provid. Who about that time say that evill men reigne, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 through the cowardlinesse of the subjects; ⟨p. 372⟩as the Prelate saith of Tertullian, I turne it, If Theodoret were² now living, he would goe for a Rebell. About that time Christians sought help from Constantine the Great, against Lycinius their Emperour, and overthrew him in battaile. And the Christians being oppressed by the King of Persia their owne King, sent to Theodosius to help them against him. 2. For the man. Tertullian in the place cited, saith, The Christians were strangers under the Emperour. Externi sumus, and therefore they had no Laws of their owne, but were under the Civill Laws of Heathen, till Constantines time; and they had sworne to Iulian as his souldiers, and therefore might have, and no doubt had, scruples of conscience to resist the Emperour. 2. It is knowne Iulian had huge numbers of Heathen in his Armie, and to resist had beene great danger. 3. Wanting Leaders and Commanders, (many prime men doubting of the lawfulnesse thereof) though they had beene equall in number, yet number is not all in warre, skill in valorous Commanders is required. 4. What if all Christians were not of Tertullians minde. 5.

1Tertullian in an error.Tertullian in an errour.
2The ancient Christians did rise in Arms against persecuting Emperors.The ancient Christians did rise in Armes against persecuting Emperours.

:1016p. 372–373

Assert. 1. The power of the sword by Gods Law is not proper &¹ peculiar to the King only, but given by God, to the inferior Judges. 1. Because the inferior Judge is essentially a Judge no less then the King, as is proved, and therefore he must bear the sword, Rom. 13. 4. 2. Not Moses only, but the Congregation of Israel had power of life and death, and so of the sword, Numb. 35. 12. The ⟨p. 373⟩manslayer shall not die, until he stand before the Congregation in judgement, ver. 24. Then the Congregation shall judge between the slayer and the avenger of blood, Deut. 22. 18. The Elders of the City shall take that man and chastise him. 21. The men of the City shall stone her with stones, Deu. 17. 5. Deu. 19. 12, 13. v. 18, 19, 20, 21. Deu. 21. 19. Then shall his father and his mother bring him to the Elders of his City. 21. And the men of the City shall stone him with stones. 1 King. 21. 11. The Elders and Nobles that were inhabitants in his City stoned Naboth. 3. Inferior Judges are condemned as murderers, who have shed innocent blood, Isaiah 1. 21. Psal. 94. 5. 6. Jer. 22. 3. Ezek. 22. 12. ver. 27. Hosea 6. 8. Zephan. 3. 1, 2, 3. Ergo, they must have the power of the sword, hence upon the same grounds.

Assert. 1. The power of the sword by Gods Law is not proper &¹ peculiar to the King only, but given by God, to the inferiour Judges. 1. Because the inferiour Judge is essentially a Judge no lesse then the King, as is proved, and therefore he must beare the sword, Rom. 13. 4. 2. Not Moses onely, but the Congregation of Israel had power of life and death, and so of the sword, Numb. 35. 12. The ⟨p. 373⟩manslayer shall not die, untill he stand before the Congregation in judgement, ver. 24. Then the Congregation shall judge betweene the slayer and the avenger of blood, Deut. 22. 18. The Elders of the City shall take that man and chastise him. 21. The men of the Citie shall stone her with stones, Deu. 17. 5. Deu. 19. 12, 13. v. 18, 19, 20, 21. Deu. 21. 19. Then shall his father and his mother bring him to the Elders of his City. 21. And the men of the City shall stone him with stones. 1 King. 21. 11. The Elders and Nobles that were inhabitants in his City stoned Naboth. 3. Inferiour Judges are condemned as murtherers, who have shed innocent blood, Esay 1. 21. Psal. 94. 5. 6. Ier. 22. 3. Ezek. 22. 12. ver. 27. Hosea 6. 8. Zephan. 3. 1, 2, 3. Ergo, they must have the power of the sword, hence upon the same grounds.

1Inferior Judges have the power of the sword aswell as the King.Inferiour Judges have the power of the sword aswell as the King.

:1017p. 373–374

Assert. 2. That the King only hath the power of war, and raising Armies must be but a positive civill Law. For, 1. by divine right, if the inferior Judges have the sword given to them of God, then have they also power of War, and raising Armies. 2. All power of war that the King hath is cumulative, not privative, and not destructive, but given for the safety of the Kingdom, as therefore the King cannot take from one particular man the power of the sword for natural self-preservation, because it is the birth-right of life; neither can the King take from a community and Kingdom a power of rising in Arms for their own defence: If an Army of Turks shall suddenly invade the Land, and the Kings consent express cannot be had (for it is essentially involved in the office of the King as King, that all the power of the sword that he hath, be for their safety) or if the King should as a man refuse his consent, and interdict and discharge the Land to rise in Arms, yet they have his Royal consent, though they want his personal consent, in respect that his office obligeth him to command them to rise in Arms. 2. Because no King, no Civill power can take away Natures birthright ¹of self-defence from any man, or a community of men. 2. Because if a King should sell his Kingdom, and invite a bloody Conqueror to come in with an Army of men to destroy his people, impose upon their conscience an Idolatrous Religion, they may lawfully rise against that Army, without the Kings consent, for though Royalists say, they need not come in asinine patience, and offer their throats to cut-throats but may flee, yet two things hindereth a flight. 1. They are obliged by virtue of the first Commandment to re-man, and with their sword defend the Cities of the ⟨p. 374⟩Lord, and the King. 2 Sam. 10. 12. 1 Chron. 19. 13. for if to defend our Country and children, and the Church of God from unjust invaders and cut-throats by the sword, be an act of charity, that God and the Law of Nature requireth of a people, as is evident, Prov. 24. 11. and if the fifth Commandment oblige the Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders, and if the sixth Commandment lay on us the like bond, all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity, though the King unjustly command the contrary;

Assert. 2. That the King onely hath the power of warre, and raising Armies must be but a positive civill Law. For, 1. by divine right, if the inferiour Judges have the sword given to them of God, then have they also power of Warre, and raising Armies. 2. All power of warre that the King hath is cumulative, not privative, and not distructive, but given for the safety of the Kingdome, as therefore the King cannot take from one particular man the power of the sword for naturall self-preservation, because it is the birth-right of life; neither can the King take from a community and Kingdome a power of rising in Armes for their owne defence: If an Armie of Turks shall suddenly invade the Land, and the Kings consent expresse cannot be had (for it is essentially involved in the office of the King as King, that all the power of the sword that he hath, be for their safety) or if the King should as a man refuse his consent, and interdict and discharge the Land to rise in Armes, yet they have his Royall consent, though they want his personall consent, in respect that his office obligeth him to command them to rise in Armes. 2. Because no King, no Civill power can take away Natures birthright ¹of self-defence from any man, or a community of men. 2. Because if a King should sell his Kingdome, and invite a bloody Conquerour to come in with an Armie of men to destroy his people, impose upon their conscience an Idolatrous Religion, they may lawfully rise against that Armie, without the Kings consent, for though Royalists say, they need not come in asinine patience, and offer their throats to cut-throats but may flee, yet two things hindereth a flight. 1. They are obliged by vertue of the first Commandement to re-man, and with their sword defend the Cities of the ⟨p. 374⟩Lord, and the King. 2 Sam. 10. 12. 1 Chron. 19. 13. for if to defend our Country and children, and the Church of God from unjust invaders and cut-throats by the sword, be an act of charity, that God and the Law of Nature requireth of a people, as is evident, Prov. 24. 11. and if the fift Commandement oblige the Land to defend their aged Parents and young children from these invaders, and if the sixt Commandement lay on us the like bond, all the Land are to act works of mercy and charity, though the King unjustly command the contrary;

1The people tied to acts of Charity, and to defend themselves, the Church, and their posterity against a foreign Army, though the King forbid.The people tyed to acts of Charity, and to defend themselves, the Church, and their posterity against a forreigne Army, though the King forbid.

:1018p. 374–375

except Royalists say, that we are not to perform the duties of the second Table commanded by God, if an earthly King forbid us; and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren, when their life is in hazard, to save them, we are murderers, and so men may murder their neighbour, if the¹ King command them so to do; this is like the Court-faith. 2. The Kings power of wars is for the safety of his people; if he deny his consent to their raising of Arms till they be destroyed, he playeth the Tyrant, not the King, and the law of Nature will necessitate them, either to defend themselves (seeing flight of all in that case is harder then death) else they must be guilty of self-murder. Now the Kings commandment of not rising in Arms, at best is positive and against the nature of his Office, and it floweth then from him as from a man, and so must be far inferior to the natural Commandment of God, which commandeth self-preservation, if we would not be guilty of self-murder, and of obeying men, rather then God. So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas. l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo. Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David took Goliaths sword, and became a Captain, a Captain to an host of armed men in the battle, and fought the battles of the Lord, 1 Sam. 25. 28. (and this Abigail by the spirit of prophecy, as I take it, saith, ver. 29, 30, 31.) 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 1. 2. 3. 17. 18. 21. 22. not only without Sauls consent, but against King Saul as he was a man, but not against him as he was King of Israel. 4. If there be no King, or the King be minor, or an usurper, as Athalia be on the Throne, the Kingdom may lawfully² make war without the King, as Judges cap. 20. The children of Israel, four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword went out to war against the children of Benjamin. Judah had the power of the sword when Josiah was but eight years old, in the beginning of his reign, 2 King. 22. 1, 2. and before Jehoash was crowned King, and while he was minor, 2 King. 11. there were Captains of hundreds ⟨p. 375⟩in arms raised by Jehoiada and the people of Judah to defend the young King. It cannot be said, that this is more extraordinary, then that it is extraordinary for Kings to die, and in the interregnum, wars, in an ordinary providence, may fall out in these Kingdoms, where Kings go by election;

except Royalists say, that we are not to performe the duties of the second Table commanded by God, if an earthly King forbid us; and if we exercise not acts of mercy toward our brethren, when their life is in hazard, to save them, wee are murtherers, and so men may murther their neighbour, if the¹ King command them so to doe; this is like the Court-faith. 2. The Kings power of warres is for the safety of his people; if he deny his consent to their raising of Armes till they be destroyed, he playeth the Tyrant, not the King, and the law of Nature will necessitate them, either to defend themselves (seeing flight of all in that case is harder then death) else they must be guilty of self-murther. Now the Kings commandement of not rising in Armes, at best is positive and against the nature of his Office, and it floweth then from him as from a man, and so must be farre inferiour to the naturall Commandement of God, which commandeth self-preservation, if wee would not be guilty of self-murther, and of obeying men, rather then God. So Althusius Polit. c. 25. n. 9. Halicarnas. l. 4. Antiq. Rom. Aristo. Pol. l. 3. c. 3. 3. David tooke Goliahs sword, and became a Captaine, a Captaine to an hoast of armed men in the battaile, and fought the battailes of the Lord, 1 Sam. 25. 28. (and this Abigal by the spirit of prophecy, as I take it, saith, ver. 29, 30, 31.) 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 1. 2. 3. 17. 18. 21. 22. not onely without Sauls consent, but against King Saul as he was a man, but not against him as hee was King of Israel. 4. If there be no King, or the King be minor, or an usurper, as Athalia be on the Throne, the Kingdome may lawfully² make war without the King, as Iudges cap. 20. The children of Israel, foure hundred thousand footemen that drew sword went out to warre against the children of Benjamin. Iudah had the power of the sword when Iosiah was but eight yeares old, in the beginning of his reigne, 2 King. 22. 1, 2. and before Iehoash was crowned King, and while he was minor, 2 King. 11. there were Captaines of hundreds ⟨p. 375⟩

1We must defend with the sword the Church of God, whether the King will or no, except it be said the King may command murder, and discharge us of the duties of the second Table.We must defend with the sword the Church of God, whether the King will or no, except it be said the King may command murther, and discharge us of the duties of the second Table.
2Examples of lawful wars without the King.Examples of lawfull warres without the King.

:1020p. 375

5. If the estates create the King, and make this man King, not this¹ man, as is clear Deut. 17. 18. and 2 Chron. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. they give to him the power of the Sword, and the power of War, and the Militia, and I shall judge it strange and reasonless, that the power given to the King, by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom, (such as Scotland is acknowledged to be, by all) should create, regulate, limit, abridge, yea and annul that power that created it self, hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King, the Parliaments creature, for the safety of Parliament and Kingdom, which yet is destructive of it self? D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament, and giveth them power to be a Parliament, and to advise and counsel him; and in the mean time Scripture saith, Deut▪ 17. 18, 19, 20. 1 Sam. 10 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 2 Sam. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. that the Parliament createth the King, heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policy, and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter? The Parliamentary power that giveth Crown, Militia, sword and all to the King, must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdom, and to annul all the power of Parliaments, to make, unmake Parliaments, and all Parliamentary power; what more absurd?

5. If the estates create the King, and make this man King, not this¹ man, as is clear Deut. 17. 18. and 2 Chron. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. they give to him the power of the Sword, and the power of War, and the Militia, and I shall judge it strange and reasonlesse, that the power given to the King, by the Parliament or estates of a free Kingdom, (such as Scotland is acknowledged to be, by all) should create, regulate, limit, abridge, yea and anull that power that created it self, hath God ordained a Parliamentary power to create a Royal power of the sword and war to be placed in the King, the Parliaments creature, for the safety of Parliament and Kingdome, which yet is destructive of it selfe? D. Ferne saith that the King summoneth a Parliament, and giveth them power to be a Parliament, and to advise and counsell him; and in the meane time Scripture saith, Deut▪ 17. 18, 19, 20. 1 Sam. 10 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. 2 Sam. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. that the Parliament createth the King, heir's admirable reciprocation of creation in policie, and shall God make the mother to destroy the daughter? The Parliamentarie power that giveth Crown, Militia, sword and all to the King, must give power to the King to use sword and war for the destruction of the Kingdome, and to annull all the power of Parliaments, to make, unmake Parliaments, and all Parliamentary power; what more absurd?

1If the Parliament make the King and give to him the sword, the King cannot make the Parliament nor use the sword to their destruction.

:1024p. 376

Answ. This may well be retorted, the Politic Head cannot then move, but upon politic reasons; and so the King cannot move to wars, but by the Law, and that is by consent of Parliament, and no Law can principle the head to destroy the members. 2. If an Army of cut-throats rise to destroy the Kingdom, because the King is in lacking, in his place, to do his duty, how can the other Judges, the States and Parliament, be accessory to murder committed by them, in not raising armies to suppress such robbers? Shall the inferior Judges be guilty of innocent blood, because the King will not do his duty? 3. The politic body ceaseth no more to renounce the principles of sinless nature, in self-defence, because it is a politic body, and subject to a King, then it can leave off to sleep, eat and drink; and there is more need of politic principles to the one, then the other. 4. The Parliaments and Estates of both Kingdoms move in these wars by the Kings Laws, and are a formal politic body in themselves.

Answ. This may well be retorted, the Politique Head cannot then move, but upon politique reasons; and so the King cannot move to wars, but by the Law, and that is by consent of Parliament, and no Law can principle the head to destroy the members. 2. If an Armie of cut-throats rise to destroy the Kingdome, because the King is in lacking, in his place, to doe his duty, how can the other Judges, the States and Parliament, be accessorie to murther committed by them, in not raising armies to suppresse such robbers? Shall the inferiour Judges be guilty of innocent blood, because the King will not doe his duty? 3. The politique body ceaseth no more to renounce the principles of sinlesse nature, in self-defence, because it is a politique body, and subject to a King, then it can leave off to sleep, eat and drink; and there is more need of politique principles to the one, then the other. 4. The Parliaments and Estates of both Kingdoms move in these wars by the Kings Lawes, and are a formall politique body in themselves.