A92147:217
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.
by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings, pa. 19. 5. he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit, or reject Saul so designed. What meaneth he? it was not morally arbitrary, because they were under a law, Deut. 17. 14, 15. to make him King, whom the Lord should choose. That is true, but was it not arbitrary to them to break a law Physically? I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so, but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary, either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King, because they had no action at all in the making of a King, God did it all, both by constituting and designing the ⟨p. 33⟩King, why then did God, Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King, not such a man, if it was not in their free will to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all? but that some sons of Belial would not accept him as their King, is expressly said, 1 Sam. 10. 27. and how did Israel conspire with Absalom, to unking and dethrone David, whom the Lord had made King? If the Prelate mean it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul, he speaketh wonders, the sons of Belial did reject him; ergo they had physical power to do it: If he mean it was not arbitrary, that is, it was not lawful to them to reject him, that is true; but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King, because it was not lawful for them to make a King in a sinful way, and to refuse him whom God chose to be King? then see what I infer. 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King, because they sin in obeying unlawful commandments against Gods Law; and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King, the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith. 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patients, and have no action in violating all the Commandments of God, because it is not lawful to them to violate any one Commandment. (6) The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himself to choose the person, and to choose Saul. What then? ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man, because God anointed Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel; this consequence is nothing, & also it followeth in no wise, that therefore the people made not Saul King. 7.