Skip to content

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

A92147:980

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 34: QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulness of defen…Lex, Rex. › Question 34: QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defen…

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:977–992 of 1,374

:977p. 362

Answ. The bloody Irish Rebels then being inferior to the Parliament, cannot resist the Parliament. 2. Inferior Judges as Judges are immediately subordinate to God as the King, and must be guilty of blood before God, if they use nor the sword against bloody Cavaliers, and Irish cut-throats, except you say, inferior Judges are not obliged to execute judgement, but at the Kings commandment.

Answ. The bloody Irish Rebels then being inferiour to the Parliament, cannot resist the Parliament. 2. Inferiour Judges as Judges are immediately subordinate to God as the King, and must be guilty of blood before God, if they use nor the sword against bloody Cavalliers, and Irish cut-throats, except you say, inferiour Judges are not obliged to execute judgement, but at the Kings commandment.

:978p. 362

Object. As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power, they are superior to the Parliament.

Object. As the Irish Rebels are armed with the Kings power, they are superiour to the Parliament.

:979p. 362

Answ. So an Army of Turks and Spaniards, armed with the Kings power, and coming against the two Kingdoms, at the Kings commandment, though they be but Lictors in a lawless cause, are superior to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdoms. But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament, first to resist Rebels; now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament: here must be contradictory wills, and contradictory powers in the King; Which of them is the Kings will, and his power? the former is legal and Parliamentary; Then, because Law is not contrary to Law, the latter cannot be legal also, nor can it be from God; and to resist it then is not to resist God.

Answ. So an Armie of Turks and Spaniards, armed with the Kings power, and comming against the two Kingdomes, at the Kings commandement, though they be but Lictors in a lawlsse cause, are superiour to the highest Courts of Parliament in the two Kingdomes. But the King and the Law gave power to the Parliament, first to resist Rebels; now he giveth power to Rebels to resist the Parliament: here must be contradictory wils, and contradictory powers in the King; Which of them is the Kings will, and his power? the former is legall and Parliamentary; Then, because Law is not contrary to Law, the latter cannot be legall also, nor can it be from God; and to resist it then is not to resist God.

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

Position

Cited: :980
On this page: :977–992
Section: :949–996
Whole work: 1,374 passages

Cite

Samuel Rutherford, A treatise of civil policy (London,, 1656), q. 34, p. 362. 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.

:988p. 363–364

Object. 16. If self-defence, and that by taking up Arms against the King, be an unlawful duty, how is it that you have no practise, no precept, no promise for it in all the word of God? 1. You have no practise; Ahab sold himself to do evil, he was an Idolater, and killed the Prophets; and his Queen a bloody Idolatress, stirred him up to great wickedness: Elijah had as great power with the people as you have, yet he never stirred up the people to take Arms against the King. Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary means of saving his Church? Arnisaeus de autho. Princ. c. 8. but Elijah only fled. Nebuchadnezzar, Ahab, Manasseh, Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters, the people never raised an Army against them. B. Williams of Osserie, p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother, son, daughter, wife or friend entice thee to follow strange gods, kill them, not a word of the father▪ Children¹ are to love Fathers, not to kill them. Christ (saith John P. P.) in the cradle, taught by practise to flee from Herod; and all Christs ⟨p. 364⟩acts and sufferings are full of mysteries, and our instructions: He might have had legions of Angels to defend him, but would rather work a miracle, in curing Malchus ear, as use the sword against Caesar. If Sectaries give us a new Creed, it will concern them near with expunging Christs descent into hell, and the communion of Saints, to raze out this, He suffered under Pontius Pilate—My resolution is (for this sin of yours) to dissolve in tears and Prayers, and with my Master say daily and hourly, Father forgive them, &c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit, to call for fire from heaven to burn the Samaritans, because they refused him lodging. 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, &c. and all sins; never against the sin of neglect, and murderous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King. 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word.

Object. 16. If self-defence, and that by taking up Armes against the King, be an unlawfull duty, how is it that you have no practise, no precept, no promise for it in all the word of God? 1. You have no practise; Ahab sold himselfe to do evill, he was an Idolater, and killed the Prophets; and his Queene a bloody Idolatresse, stirred him up to great wickednesse: Elias had as great power with the people as you have, yet hee never stirred up the people to take Armes against the King. Why did God at this time rather use an extraordinary meanes of saving his Church? Arnisaeus de autho. Princ. c. 8. but Elias only fled. Nebuchadnezer, Ahab, Manassah, Julian were Tyrants and Idolaters, the people never raised an Armie against them. B. Williams of Osserie, p. 21. Deut. 14. If brother, son, daughter, wife or friend intice thee to follow strange gods, kill them, not a word of the father▪ Children¹ are to love Fathers, not to kill them. Christ (saith John P. P.) in the cradle, taught by practise to flee from Herod; and all Christs ⟨p. 364⟩acts and sufferings are full of mysteries, and our instructions: Hee might have had legions of Angels to defend him, but would rather worke a miracle, in curing Malchus eare, as use the sword against Caesar. If Sectaries give us a new Creed, it will concerne them neere with expunging Christs descent into hell, and the communion of Saints, to raze out this, He suffered under Pontius Pilate—My resolution is (for this sin of yours) to dissolve in teares and Prayers, and with my Master say daylie and hourely, Father forgive them, &c. Christ thought it an uncouth spirit, to call for fire from heaven to burne the Samaritans, because they refused him lodging. 2. The Prophets cried out against Idolatry, blasphemy, murther, adultery, &c. and all sins; never against the sin of neglect, and murtherous omission to defend Church and Religion against a tyrannous King. 3. No promise is made to such a rebellious insurrection in Gods word.

1Prelate. Sac. sanc. maj. c. 5. n. 6.Prelat. Sac. sanc. maj. c. 5. n. 6.

:989p. 364–365

Answ. It is a great non-consequence; this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word. Ergo. It is no duty. Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith: Show a practice when a husband ¹stoned his wife, because she enticed him to follow strange Gods. Yet it is commanded, Deut. 13 6. when a man lying with a beast is put to death: Yet it is a Law, Exod. 22. 19. infinite more Laws are, the practise of which we find not in Scripture. 2. Jehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahab's posterity for their Idolatry; and if Jehu out of sincerity, and for the zeal of God, had done what God commanded, he should have been rewarded: for say that it was extraordinary to Jehu, that he should kill Ahab, yet there was an express Law for it, that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death, Deut. 13. 6. and there is no exception of King, or Father in the Law, and to except father or mother in Gods matters, is expressly against the zeal of God, Deut. 33. 9. And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Jehu King, and in killing King Nabad, and smiting all the house of Jeroboam fo• his Idolatry; they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty, according to Gods express Law, Deut. 13. 6, 7, 8, 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary. 3. Ahab and Jezebel raised not an Army of Idolaters; Malignants, such as are Papists, Prelates, and Cavaliers, against the three Estates, to destroy Parliaments, Laws and Religion, and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry, to forsake the Covenant, throw down the Altars of God, and slay his Prophets, so as in the estimation ⟨p. 365⟩of Elijah, 1 King. 19. 9, 10, 11. there was not one man, but they were Malignant Cavaliers, and hath any Elijah now power with the Cavaliers, to exhort them to rise in Arms against themselves, and to show them it is their duty to make war against the King and themselves, in the defence of Religion? when the Prophets had much ado to convince the people, that they sinned in joining with the King, what place was there to show them their sin, in not using their own lawful defence? And in reason any may judge it unreasonable, for Elijah to exhort, of thousand thousands in Israel;

Answ. It is a great non-consequence; this duty is not practised by any examples in Gods word. Ergo. It is no duty. Practice in Scripture is a narrow rule of faith: Shew a practice when a husband ¹stoned his wife, because she inticed him to follow strange Gods. Yet it is commanded, Deut. 13 6. when a man lying with a beast is put to death: Yet it is a Law, Exod. 22. 19. infinite more Lawes are, the practise of which we finde not in Scripture. 2. Iehu and the Elders of Israel rooted out Ahabs posterity for their Idolatry; and if Iehu out of sincerity, and for the zeale of God, had done what God commanded, he should have beene rewarded: for say that it was extraordinary to Iehu, that he should kill Ahab, yet there was an expresse Law for it, that he that stirreth up others to Idolatry should die the death, Deut. 13. 6. and there is no exception of King, or Father in the Law, and to except father or mother in Gods matters, is expresly against the zeale of God, Deut. 33. 9. And many grave Divines think the people to be commended in making Iehu King, and in killing King Nabad, and smiting all the house of Ieroboam fo• his Idolatry; they did that which was a part of their ordinary duty, according to Gods expresse Law, Deut. 13. 6, 7, 8, 9. though the facts of these men be extraordinary. 3. Ahab and Iezabel raised not an Armie of Idolaters; Malignants, such as are Papists, Prelates, and Cavalliers, against the three Estates, to destroy Parliaments, Lawes and Religion, and the people conspired with Ahab in the persecution and Idolatry, to forsake the Covenant, throw downe the Altars of God, and slay his Prophets, so as in the estimation ⟨p. 365⟩of Elias, 1 King. 19. 9, 10, 11. there was not one man, but they were Malignant Cavalliers, and hath any Elias now power with the Cavalliers, to exhort them to rise in Armes against themselves, and to shew them it is their duty to make warre against the King and themselves, in the defence of Religion? when the Prophets had much adoe to convince the people, that they sinned in joyning with the King, what place was there to shew them their sin, in not using their owne lawfull defence? And in reason any may judge it unreasonable, for Elias to exhort, of thousand thousands in Israel;

1The objection that Go•s Prophets never rebuked nonresistance as a murderous omission, and that Gods people in▪ Scripture never practised resistance, a•d God n•v•r commanded it, f•lly answered.The objection that Go•s Prophets never rebuked nonresistance as a murtherous omission, and that Gods people in▪ Scripture never pract•s•d resistanc•, a•d God n•v•r commanded it, f•lly •nsw•red.

:991p. 365–366

2. Elijah did not only flee, but denounced wrath against the King, and Cavaliers, who joined with them in Idolatry, and when God gave opportunity, he showed himself, and stirred the people up to kill Baals Jesuits and seducing idolaters, when the Idolatrous King refused to do it, and Elijah with his own hand took them not, but all Israel being gathered together, 1 King. 18. 19. The Princes and Judges did apprehend them, ver. 40. which is a warrant, when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists, that other judges are to do it. 2. For Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah from the Lord, expressly forbade to fight against him, show us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cutthroats: for that example may as well prove (if it be a binding law to us) that our King should not raise his Subjects, to fight against a Spanish Armada, and a foreign Prince; for before ever Nebuchadnezzar subdued the Kingdom of Judah Jer. 27. 1. In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, ver. 12, 13, 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Judah is from the Lord commanded, not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon; I hope this will not tie us, and our King, not to fight against foreign Princes, or against the great Turk, if they shall unjustly invade us and our King, and this example ⟨p. 366⟩is against the Kings resisting of a foreign Prince unjustly invading him, as much, as against us, for Nebuchadnezzar was a Tyrannous invader, and the King of Judah the Lords Anointed. 3. The people also conspired with Manasseh, as with Ahab, Jer. 15. 4. 4. Of Emperors persecuting Christians we shall hear anon. 5. Deut. 13. None are excepted, by a synecdoche, the dearest are expressed, son, daughter, brother, the friend that is as thine own soul. Ergo, fathers also. And husbands are to love their lives. Ephes. 5. 25. Yet to execute judgement on them, without pity, Deut. 13. 8. 9. The father is to love the son, yet if the son prophecy falsely in the name of the Lord, to kill him. Zach. 13. 3. Hence love, fear, reverence toward th• King may be commanded, and defensive wars also. 6. Christ fled from Herod, and all his actions and sufferings are mysteries and instructions, saith the poor Prelate. 1.

2. Elias did not onely flee, but denounced wrath against the King, and Cavalliers, who joyned with them in Idolatry, and when God gave oportunity, he shewed himself, and stirred the people up to kill Baals Iesuits and seduceing idolatours, when the Idolatrous King refused to do it, and Eliah with his own hand took them not, but all Israel being gathered together, 1 King. 18. 19. The Princes and Judges did apprehend them, ver. 40. which is a warrant, when the King refuseth to draw the sword of justice against armed Papists, that other judges are to do it. 2. For Nebuchadnezzer, Ieremiah from the Lord, expresly forbad to fight against him, shew us the like for no defending our selves against bloody Papists and Irish cutthroats: for that example may as well prove (if it be a binding law to us) that our King should not raise his Subjects, to fight against a Spanish Armado, and a forraigne Prince; for before ever Nebuchadnezzer subdued the Kingdom of Iudah Ier. 27. 1. In the beginning of the raigne of Iehoiakim, ver. 12, 13, 14. chap. 36. chap. 37. the King of Iudah is from the Lord commanded, not to draw a sword against the King of Babylon; I hope this will not tye us, and our King, not to fight against forraigne Princes, or against the great Turk, if they shall unjustly invade us and our King, and this example ⟨p. 366⟩is against the Kings resisting of a forraigne Prince unjustly invading him, as much, as against us, for Nebuchadnezzar was a Tyrannous invader, and the King of Iudah the Lords Annoynted. 3. The people also conspired with Manasseh, as with Ahab, Ier. 15. 4. 4. Of Emperours persecuting Christians we shall heare anon. 5. Deut. 13. None are excepted, by a synecdoche, the dearest are expressed, sonne, daughter, brother, the friend that is as thine own soul. Ergo, fathers also. And husbands are to love their lives. Ephes. 5. 25. Yet to execute judgement on them, without pitty, Deut. 13. 8. 9. The father is to love the son, yet if the son prophecy falsely in the name of the Lord, to kill him. Zach. 13. 3. Hence love, fear, reverence toward th• King may be commanded, and defensive warres also. 6. Christ fled from Herod, and all his actions and sufferings are mysteries and instructions, saith the poor Prelate. 1.

:992p. 366–367

Christ kissed the man that to his knowledge came to betray him, Christ fled not, but knowing where, and when his enemy should apprehend him, came willingly¹ to the place. Ergo, we should not flee. 2. His actions are so mysterious that John P. P. in imitation of Christs forty days fast, will fast from flesh in lent, and the Prelate must walk on the sea, and work miracles, if all Christs actions be our instructions. 7. He might with more then twelve Legions of Angels defend himself, but he would not, not because resistance was unlawful, no shadow for that in the text, but because it was Gods will, that he should drink the cup his Father gave him, & because to take the sword without Gods warrant, subjecteth the usurper of Gods place to perish with the sword. Peter had Gods revealed will, that Christ behoved to suffer, Math. 26. 52, 53. Math. 16. 21, 22, 23. & Gods positive command that Christ should die for sinners, John 10. 24. may well restrain an act of lawful self-preservation, hic & nunc, and such an act as Christ lawfully used, at another time, Luk. 4. 29▪ 30. Joh. 11. 7, 8. we give no new creed, but this apostate hath forsaken his old creed, & the religion of the Church of Scotland, in which he was Baptised. 9. Nor do we expunge out of the Creed Christs descension into hell, & the communion of Saints, as the apostate saith, but the Popish local descension of Christ, & the Popish advancing of the Churches power above the Scriptures, & the intercession & prayers to the saints, or of the saints for us, we deny, & this Prelate, though he did swear the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, preached expressly all these & many other points of Popery in the Pulpits of Edinburgh. 10. We believe that ⟨p. 367⟩Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, but that Pilate had any legal power to condemn Christ, (but only a power by a permissive Decree, Act. 4. 27, 28. Such as Devils had by Gods permission, Luke. 22. 53.) we utterly deny. 11. The Prelate saith it is his resolution, for our sin of natural self defence, to dissolve in tears, because his Bishopric (I conceive) by which he was wont to dissolve in cups, (being drunk on the Lords day, after he (with other Prelates) had been at the Lords Supper, while the Chamber▪ wherein they were, was dissolved in vomiting,) was taken from him. 12.

Christ kissed the man that to his knowledge came to betray him, Christ fled not, but knowing where, and when his enemy should apprehend him, came willingly¹ to the place. Ergo, we should not flee. 2. His actions are so mysterious that Iohn P. P. in imitation of Christs fourty dayes fast, will fast from flesh in lent, and the Prelate must walk on the sea, and work miracles, if all Christs actions be our instructions. 7. He might with more then twelve Legions of Angels defend himself, but he would not, not because resistance was unlawfull, no shadow for that in the text, but because it was Gods will, that he should drink the cup his Father gave him, & because to take the sword without Gods warrant, subjecteth the usurper of Gods place to perish with the sword. Peter had Gods revealed wil, that Christ behoved to suffer, Math. 26. 52, 53. Math. 16. 21, 22, 23. & Gods positive command that Christ should die for sinners, Iohn 10. 24. may well restraine an act of lawfull self-preservation, hic & nunc, and such an act as Christ lawfully used, at another time, Luk. 4. 29▪ 30. Ioh. 11. 7, 8. we give no new creed, but this apostate hath forsaken his old creed, & the religion of the Church of Scotland, in which he was Baptised. 9. Nor do we expunge out of the Creed Christs descension into hell, & the communion of Saints, as the apostate saith, but the Popish locall descension of Christ, & the Popish advancing of the Churches power above the Scriptures, & the intercession & prayers to the saints, or of the saints for us, we deny, & this Prelate, though he did swear the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, preached expresly all these & many other poynts of Popery in the Pulpits of Edenburgh. 10. We beleeve that ⟨p. 367⟩Christ suffered under Pontius Pilat, but that Pilat had any legal power to condemne Christ, (but onely a power by a permissive Decree, Act. 4. 27, 28. Such as Devils had by Gods permission, Luke. 22. 53.) we utterly deny. 11. The Prelat saith it is his resolution, for our sin of naturall selfe defence, to dissolve in tears, because his Bishopricke (I conceive) by which he was wont to dissolve in cups, (being drunk on the Lords day, after he (with other Prelates) had been at the Lords Supper, while the Chamber wherein they were, was dissolved in vomitting,) was taken from him. 12.

1Rivet. in D• call. in mand. 6. pag. 234. Showeth the reasons, why Christ condemned Peter, not because he thought self defence unlawful, but 1. it had a kind of revenge in it▪ for so, few could not repel such an army as ca••• to take Christ. 2. He waited not on Christs answer. 3. He could have defended himself another way. 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter.Rivet. in D• cal. in mand. 6. pag. 234. Sheweth the reasons, why Christ condemned Peter, not because he thought self defence unlawfull, but 1. it had a kind of revenge in it▪ for so, few could not repel such an army as ca••• to take Christ. 2. He waited not on Christs answer. 3. He could have defended himself another way. 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter.