A92147:1357
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. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King, it being the immediate result (without intervening of Law, or any act of man) issuing from God only?] Ans. Though we1 should give (which in reason we cannot grant) that Royal power were a result of the immediate bounty of God, without any act of man; Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks, though God immediately make Peter an Apostle, without any act of men, yet Paul by a sharp rebuke, Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth ⟨p. 458⟩his power, that he abuse it not to Judaizing; Royalists deny not, but they teach, That the 80. Priests that restrained Uzziah his power, from burning incense to the Lord, gave no Royal power to Uzziah▪ Do not subjects by flight lay restraint upon a Kings power, that he kill not the subjects without cause? yet they teach, That subjects gave no power to the King; certainly this is a proof of the immense power of the King of Kings, that none can fly from his pursuing hand, Ps. 139. 1, 2, 3. Amos 9. 1, 2, 3, 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, (as Royalists teach) might justly conquer some Kingdoms, for conquest is a just title to the Crown, (say they) now the Conqueror then justly not only limiteth the Royal Power of the conquered King, but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him, yet we know, the conqueror gave no Royal power to the conquered King. Joshua and David took away Royal power which they never gave, and therefore this is no good reason, The people gave not to the King Royal Power, ergo, they could not lawfully limit it, and take it away.
Quest. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King, it being the immediate result (without intervening of Law, or any act of man) issuing from God only?] Ans. Though we1 should give (which in reason we cannot grant) that Royall power were a result of the immediate bounty of God, without any act of man; Yet it may be limited by men that it over-swell not its banks, though God immediatly make Peter an Apostle, without any act of men, yet Paul by a sharpe rebuke,