A92147:1086
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.
2. All Kings as Kings, and by a Divine Law of God, and so by no absoluteness of Majesty, are to make men of wisdom, fearing God, hating covetousness, Judges under them, Deut. 1. 13. 2 Chro. 19. 6, 7. Psal. 101. 6, 7, 8.
2. All Kings as Kings, and by a Divine Law of God, and so by no absolutenesse of Majesty, are to make men of wisdome, fearing God, hating covetousnesse, Judges under them, Deut. 1. 13. 2 Chro. 19. 6, 7. Psal. 101. 6, 7, 8.
3. If we suppose a King to be limited as Gods King is Deut. 17. 18, 19, 20. Yet is it his part to confer honours upon the worthiest. Now if he have no absoluteness of Majesty, he cannot confer honours out of a principle that is none at all, unum quodque sicut est, ita operatur, and if the people confer honours, then must Royalists grant that there is an absolute Majesty in the people, why then may they not derive Majesty to a King? and why then do Royalists talk to us of Gods immediate creating of Kings, without any intervening action of the people?
3. If we suppose a King to be limited as Gods King is Deut. 17. 18, 19, 20. Yet is it his part to confer honours upon the worthiest. Now if he have no absolutenesse of Majesty, he cannot confer honours out of a principle that is none at all, unum quodque sicut est, ita operatur, and if the people confer honours, then must Royalists grant that there is an absolute Majesty in the people, why then may they not derive Majesty to a King? and why then do Royalists talk to us of Gods immediate creating of Kings, without any interveening action of the people?