A92147:127
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. XXIV. What relation the King hath to the Law? p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable, or as penal, ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power, p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments, as their Judge? p. 208, p. 209, 210, 211. ⟨image 17⟩Subordination of the King to the Parliament, and coordination both consistent, p. 210, 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other, and they cannot any one of them, be in its prevalency, conveniently without the mixture of the other two, p. 211, 212. The King as a King cannot err, as he erreth in so far, he is not the remedy of oppression and Anarchy, intended by God and nature, p. 212. In the court of necessity, the people may judge the King, p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernible, p. 213, 214. Its more requisite, that the whole people, Church, and Religion, be secured, then one man, p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King, it must be physical; for a moral restraint is upon all men, p. 214, 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute, is an oath eatenus, in so far unlawful, and not obligatory, p. 215.
QUEST. XXIV. What relation the King hath to the Law? p. 207. Humane Laws considered as reasonable, or as penal, ibid. The King alone hath not a Nemothetick power, p. 208. Whether the King be above Parliaments, as their Iudge? p. 208, p. 209, 210, 211. ⟨image 17⟩Subordination of the King to the Parliament, and coordination both consistent, p. 210, 211. Each one of the three Governments hath somewhat from each other, and they cannot any one of them, be in its prevalency, conveniently without the mixture of the other two, p. 211, 212. The King as a King cannot erre, as he erreth in so far, he is not the remedie of oppression and Anarchie, intended by God and nature, p. 212. In the court of necessitie, the people may judge the King, p. 213. Humane Laws not so obscure as tyranny is visible and discernable, p. 213, 214. Its more requisite, that the whole people, Church, and Religion, be secured, then one man, p. 215. If there be any restraint by Law on the King, it must be physicall; for a morall restraint is upon all men, p. 214, 215. To swear to an absolute Prince as absolute, is an oath eatenus, in so far unlawfull, and not obligatory, p. 215.