A92147:289
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. That is the question, If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance, cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice: For if a Kingdom be his by birth, as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son, I see not but any man upon necessary occasions,1 may sell his inheritance; but if a Prince sell his Kingdom, a very Barclay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say, he may be dispossessed and dethroned, and take up his indelible Character then. 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so, as it is unjustice to take it from him, as to take a mans purse from him; the Lords Church (in a Christian Kingdom) is Gods heritage, and the King only a shepherd, and the sheep in the court of conscience, are not his. 3. Royal unction is not an indelible Character; for neither Saul nor David were all their days Kings thereby, but lived many days private men after divine unction, while the people anointed them Kings, except you say, 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel. 2. And that Saul killing David, should have killed ⟨p. 75⟩his own Lord, and his anointed. 4. If David durst not take the right of Government actually on him, then divine unction made him not King, but only designed him to be King: the peoples election must make the King.
Answ. That is the question, If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance, cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice: For if a Kingdom be his by birth, as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son, I see not but any man upon necessary occasions,1 may sell his inheritance; but if a Prince sell his Kingdom, a very Barelay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say, he may be dispossessed and dethroned, and take up his indeleble Character then. 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so, as it is unjustice to take it from him, as to take a mans purse from him; the Lords Church (in a Christian Kingdom) is Gods heritage, and the King onely a shepheard, and the sheep in the court of conscience, are not his. 3. Royall unction is not an indeleble Character; for neither Saul nor David were all their dayes Kings thereby, but lived many dayes private men after divine unction, while the people anointed them Kings, except you say, 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel. 2. And that Saul killing David, should have killed