A92147:130
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. XXVII. Whether or no, the King be the sole, supreme and final Interpreter of the Law? Negatur, p. 252. He is not the supreme and peremptory Interpreter, p. 254. Nor is his will the sense of the Law, p. 252, 253. Nor is he the sole, and only judicial Interpreter of the Law, p. 253, 254, 255, seq.
QUEST. XXVII. Whether or no, the King be the sole, supreme and finall Interpreter of the Law? Negatur, p. 252. He is not the supreme and peremptor Interpreter, p. 254. Nor is his will the sense of the Law, p. 252, 253. Nor is he the sole, and onely judiciall Interpreter of the Law, p. 253, 254, 255, seq.
QUEST. XXVIII. Whether or no Wars raised by the Estates and Subjects for their own just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawful? Affir. p. 257. The state of the question. P. 257, 258, If Kings be absolute, a superior Judge may punish an inferior Judge, not as a Judge, but an erring man. ibid. By Divine institution, all Covenants to restrain their power must be unlawful. p. 258, 259. Resistance in some cases lawful, p. 260, 261, 262. Six Arguments for the lawfulness of defensive Wars, in this Quest. 260. seq. Many others follow, Quest. 29. and 30. seq.
QUEST. XXVIII. Whether or no Wars raised by the Estates and Subjects for their owne just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull? Affir. p. 257. The state of the question. P. 257, 258, If Kings be absolute, a superiour Iudge may punish an inferiour Iudge, not as a Iudge, but an erring man. ibid. By Divine institution, all Covenants to restraine their power must be unlawfull. p. 258, 259. Resistance in some cases lawfull, p. 260, 261, 262. Six Arguments for the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars, in this Quest. 260. seq. Many others follow, Quest. 29. and 30. seq.
QUEST. XXIX. Whether in the case of defensive War, the distinction of the Person of the King as a man, who may, and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects, and of the Office and Royal Power that he hath from God and the people, can have place? Affirmatur. p. 265. The Kings Person in concreto, and his Office in abstracto, or which is all one, the King using his Power lawfully, to be distinguished,