A92147:112
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.
QUEST. IX. Whether or no, Sovereignty is so in and from the people, that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity? Negatur. pag. 58. How the people is the subject of Sovereignty, Ibid. No Tyrannical power is from God, P. 59. People cannot alienate the natural power of self-defence, Ibid. The power of Parliaments, P. 60. The Parliament hath more power then the King, Ibid. Judges and Kings differ, P. 61. People may resume their power, not because they are infallible, but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves, as one man may do, P. 63. That the Sanhedrin punished not David, Bathsheba, Joab, is but a fact, not a law, P. 63, 64. There is a subordination of Creatures natural, Government must be natural; and yet this, or that form, is voluntary, P. 65, 66, 67.
QUEST. IX. Whether or no, Soveraigntie is so in and from the people, that they may resume their power in time of extreme necessity? Negatur. pag. 58. How the people is the subject of Soveraignty, Ibid. No Tyrannicall power is from God, P. 59. People cannot alienate the naturall power of self-defence, Ibid. The power of Parliaments, P. 60. The Parliament hath more power then the King, Ibid. Judges and Kings differ, P. 61. People may resume their power, not because they are infallible, but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves, as one man may do, P. 63. That the Sanedrim punished not David, Bathsheba, Joab, is but a fact, not a law, P. 63, 64. There is a subordination of Creatures naturall, Government must be naturall; and yet this, or that form, is voluntary, P. 65, 66, 67.
QUEST. X. Whether or not Royal birth be equivalent to Divine Unction? Negatur. pag. 68. Impugned by eight Arguments. Ibid. Royalty not transmitted from father to son. ibid. A family may be chosen to a Crown as a single person is chosen, but the tie is conditional in both. pag. 68. 69. The Throne by special promise made to David and his seed, by God, ⟨image 12⟩Psal. 89. no ground to make birth, In foro Dei, a just title to the crown. pag. 69 70. A Title by conquest to a Throne must be unlawful, if birth be gods lawful title. pag. 70. Royalists who hold conquest to be a just title to the Crown, teach manifest treason against King Charles, and his Royal Heirs. ibid. Only, Bona fortunae, not honour or Royalty properly transmittable from father to son. pag. 71. Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people, to submit to a conqueror as their lawful King. pag. 72. Naked birth is inferior to that very divine unction, that made no man a King without the peoples election. pag. 73. If a Kingdom were by birth the King might sell it. pag. 74. The Crown is the Patrimony of the Kingdom, not of him who is King, or of his father pag. 72, 73, 76. Birth a typical designment to the Crown in Israel. pag. 74. The choice of a family to the Crown resolveth upon the free election of the people, as on the fountain-cause. pag. 76. Election of a family to the Crown lawful. pag. 77.