A92147:281
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.
3. If royal birth be equivalent to royal unction, and the best title, 1and if birth speak and declare to us the Lords appointment and Will, that the first born of a King should be King, as M. Symmons and others say; then is all title by conquest, where the former King standeth, in title to the Crown, and hath an Heir, unlawful. But the latter is against all the nation of the Royalists, for Arnisaeus, Barclay, Grotius, Jo. Roffensis Episco. the Bishop of Spalato, Dr. Ferne, M. Symmons, the excommunicate Prelate, if his poor learning may bring ⟨p. 70⟩him▪ in the roll, teach that conquest is a lawful title to a Crown. I prove the Proposition, 1. because if birth speak Gods revealed Will, that the Heir of a King is the lawful King, then conquest cannot speak the contradicent Will of God, that he is no lawful2 King, but the conqueror is the lawful King. Gods revealed Will should be contradictory to himself, and birth should speak it is Gods Will, that the Heir of the former King be King, and the conquest being also Gods revealed Will, should also speak that that Heir should not be King. 2. If birth speak and reveal Gods Will that the Heir be King, it is unlawful for a conquered people to give their consent that a conqueror be their King. For their consent being contrary to Gods revealed Will, (which is, that birth is the just title) must be an unlawful consent. If Royalists say, God the King of Kings who immediately maketh Kings, may, and doth transfer Kingdoms to whom he will, and when he putteth the sword in Nebuchadnezzars hand, to conquer the King and Kingdom of Judah, then Zedekiah or his son is not King of Judah, but Nebuchadnezzar is King, and God being above his Law, speaketh in that case his Will by conquests, as before he spake his Will by birth; this is all can be said. Ans. They answer black treason in saying so, for if Jeremiah from the Lord had not commanded expressly, that both the King and Kingdom of Judah should submit to the King of 3Babylon, and serve him, and pray for him, as their lawful King, it had been as lawful to them to rebel against that Tyrant, as it was for them to fight against the Philistims, and the King of Ammon;