A92147:263
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.
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,1 they have the power of a Law, and the King is obliged to consent, by his Royal Office to all good Laws, and neither King nor people may oppose them. Buchanan said Acts of Parliament are not Laws obliging the people till they be promulgated, and the peoples silence when they are promulgated is their approbation, and maketh them obligatory Laws to them; but if the people speak against unjust Laws, they are not Laws at all, and Buchanan knew the power of the Scottish Parliament, better then this ignorant Statist. 2. There is not like reason to grant so much to the King, as to Parliaments, because certainly Parliaments who make Kings under God, or above any one man, and they must have more authority and wisdom then any one King, except Solomon (as base flatterers2 say) should return to the thrones of the earth. And as the power to make just Laws is all in the Parliament, only the people have power to resist tyrannical Laws, the power of all the Parliament was never given to the King, by God, the Parliament are as essentially Judges as the King, and therefore the Kings deed may well be revoked, because he acteth nothing as King; but united with his great or lesser Council, no more then the eye can see, being separated from the body. The Peers and Members of Parliament have more then the King, because they have both their own power, being parts and special Members of the people, and also they have their high places in Parliament, either from the peoples express, or tacit consent. 3. We allow no Arbitrary power to the Parliament, because their just Laws are irrevocable, for the irrevocable power of making just Laws doth argue a legal, not an irrevocable Arbitrary power;
Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument, and yet Barclaius need not thanke 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 seene the like) the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Masse Booke, when the Lords of the Counsell pressed it against all Law of God and man, upon the Kingdome of Scotland, and therefore it is denyed 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 onely,