A92147:1085
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.
For the King is not obliged to govern the Common-wealth, because he receiveth these Royal Privileges as his reward, but because by office he is obliged to govern the common-wealth, therefore these privileges are given to him, and without them he could not so easily govern. But I am utterly against Arnisaeus, who saith, these are not essential to a King, Because (saith he) he createth Marquesses, Dukes, &c. and Nobles, constituteth Magistrates, not because of His Royal Dignity, but by reason of his absolute power, for many Princes have supreme power, and cannot make Nobles, and therefore to him they are jura majestatis, non jura potestatis. But 1. The King, suppose a limited King, may and ought to make nobles, for he may confer honours as a reward of1 virtue; none can say Pharaoh by his absolute authority, and not as a King advanced Joseph to be a noble Ruler, we cannot say that, for there was merit and worth in him deserving that honour, and Darius not by absolute authority, but on the ground of well-deserving (the rule by which Kings are obliged in justice to confer honours) promoted Daniel, to be the first president of all his kingdoms, because Dan. 6. 3. An excellent spirit was in him: and in Justice the King could nobilitate none, rather then Daniel, except he should fail against the rule of conferring honours. It is acknowledged by all, that honos est proemium virtutis, honour is founded upon virtue, and therefore Darius did not this out of his absolute Majesty, but as King.
For the King is not obliged to governe the Common-wealth, because he receiveth these Royall Priviledges as his reward, but because by office he is obliged to governe the common-wealth, therefore these priviledges are given to him, and without them he could not so easily governe. But I am utterly against Arnisaeus, who saith, these are not essentiall to a King, Because (saith he) he createth Marquesses, Dukes, &c. and Nobles, constituteth Magistrates, not because of His Royall Dignity, but by reason of his absolute power, for many Princes have supreame power, and cannot make Nobles, and therefore to him they are jura majestatis, non jura potestatis. But 1. The King, suppose a limited King, may and ought to make nobles, for he may conferre honours as a reward of1 vertue; none can say Pharoah by his absolute authority, and not as a King advanced Ioseph to be a noble Ruler, we cannot say that, for there was merit and worth in him deserving that honour, and Darius not by absolute authority, but on the ground of well-deserving (the rule by which Kings are obliged in justice to confer honours) promoted Daniel, to be the first president of all his kingdomes, because