A92147:113
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. 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.
QUEST. X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to Divine Unction? Negatur. pag. 68. Impugned by eight Arguments. Ibid. Royalty not transmitted from father to sonne. ibid. A family may be chosen to a Crown as a single person is chosen, but the tye is conditionall in both. pag. 68. 69. The Throne by speciall 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 crowne. pag. 69 70. A Title by conquest to a Throne must be unlawfull, if birth be gods lawfull title. pag. 70. Royalists who hold conquest to be a just title to the Crown, teach manifest treason against King Charles, and his Royall Heires. ibid. Only, Bona fortunae, not honour or Royalty properly transmittable from father to sonne. pag. 71. Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people, to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King. pag. 72. Naked birth is inferiour to that very divine unction, that made no man a King without the peoples election. pag. 73. If a Kingdome were by birth the King might sell it. pag. 74. The Crown is the Patrimony of the Kingdome, not of him who is King, or of his father pag. 72, 73, 76. Birth a typicall designement to the Crowne in Israel. pag. 74. The choise of a family to the Crowne resolveth upon the free election of the people, as on the fountaine-cause. pag. 76. Election of a family to the Crown lawfull. pag. 77.