A92147:895
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.
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
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.
Self-preservation in all creatures in which is nature, is in the creatures suitable to their nature: The Bull defendeth it self1 by its horns, 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 self 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. Dr. Ferne alloweth2 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. and against a Commandment of God, except Royalists grant tyrannous powers may be resisted. 2. The consequence is naught, for a private man may defend himself against unjust violence, but not any way he pleaseth; The first way is by supplications and apologies, he may not presently use violence to the Kings servants before he supplicate, nor may he use re-offending, if flight may3 save. David used all the three in order; 1. He made his defence by words, by the mediation of Jonathan; when that prevailed not, he took himself to flight, as the next;