A92147:916
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.
Royalists object that David in his defence never invaded and persecuted Saul; yea, when he came upon Saul and his men sleeping, he would not kill any; but the Scottish and Parliaments Forces not only defend, but invade, offend, kill and plunder; and this is clearly an offensive, not a defensive war.
Royalists object that David in his defence never invaded and persecuted Saul; yea, when he came upon Saul and his men sleeping, hee would not kill any; but the Scottish and Parliaments Forces not onely defend, but invade, offend, kill and plunder; and this is cleerely an offensive, not a defensive warre.
Answ. There is no defensive war different in species and nature1 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 eatenus, but if that same man had taken away that same brothers life, by the flying off of an Axe head off 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 self-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.