A92147:497
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.
And all the Judges of the earth (saith Edw. Symmons) are from God more remotely, namely (mediante Rege) by the mediation of the Supreme, even as the lesser stars have their light from God by the mediation of the Sun. To the first I answer, There was a difference betwixt the Kings of Israel and their Judges, no question: but if it be an essential difference, it is a question: for, 1. The Judges were raised up in an extraordinary manner, out of any Tribe, to defend the people, and vindicate their liberty, God remaining their King: the King by the Lords appointment was tied, after Saul, to the Royal tribe of Judah, till the Messiahs coming. God took his own blessed liberty to set up a succession in the ten tribes- 2. The Judges were not by succession from father to son: the Kings were, as I conceive, for the typical eternity of the Messiahs throne, presignified to stand from generation to generation. 3. Whether the Judges were appointed by the election of the people, or no, some doubt, because Jephthah was so made Judge: but I think it was not a law in Israel that it should be so: but the first mould of a King, Deut. 17. is by election. But that God gave power of domineering, that is, of Tyrannizing, to a King, so as he cannot be resisted, which he gave not to a Judge, I think no Scripture can make good: For by what Scripture can Royalists warrant to us that the people might rise in arms to defend themselves against Moses, Gideon, Eli, Samuel, and other Judges, if they should have tyrannized over the people: and that it is unlawful to resist the most Tyrannous King in Israel and Judah? ⟨p. 168⟩Yet Barclay and others must say this, if they be true to that principle of Tyranny, That the jus Regis, the law or manner of the King, 1 Sam. 8. 9, 11. & 1 Sam. 10. 25, doth essentially difference betwixt the Kings of Israel, and the Judges of Israel: but we think God gave never any power of Tyranny to either Judge or King of Israel; and domination in that sense was by God given to none of them. 2. Arnisaeus hath as little for him, to say the inferior Magistrate may be resisted, because we may appeal from him: but the King cannot be resisted, quia sanctitas Majestatis id non permittit, the sanctity of Royal majesty will not permit us to resist the King. Ans.