A92147:262
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.
But I now follow the P. Prelate. Some of the adversaries, as Buchanan, 1say that the Parliament hath no power to make a law, but only a [Greek or Hebrew] without the approbation of the Community. Others, as the the Observator, say, that the right of the Gentry and Commonalty is entirely in the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons, and will have their Orders irrevocable. If then the common2 people cannot resume their power, and oppose the Parliament, how can Tables and Parliaments resume their power, and resist the King?
But I now follow the P. Prelate. Some of the adversaries, as Buchanan, 1say that the Parliament hath no power to make a law, but only a 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 without the approbation of the Communitie. Others, as the the Observator, say, that the right of the Gentry and Communalty is intirely in the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons, and will have their Orders irrevocable. If then the common2 people cannot resume their power, and oppose the Parliament, how can Tables and Parliaments resume their power, and resist the King?
- 1Sac. Reg. Maj. The sacred and royal prerogative of Kings c. 9. p. 101. 102.Sac. Reg. Maj. The sacred and royall prerogative of Kings c. 9. p. 101. 102.
- 2Stolen from Barclaius.Stollen from Barclaius.
Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument, and yet Barclaius need not thank him, for it hath not the nerves that Barclaius gave it. But I answer, 1. if the Parliament should have been corrupted by fair hopes (as in our age we have seen the like) the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Mass Book, when the Lords of the Council pressed it against all Law of God and man, upon the Kingdom of Scotland, and therefore it is denied that the Acts of Parliament are irrevocable, the observator said they were irrevocable by the King, he being but one man, the P. Prelate wrongeth him, for he said only,