A92147:636
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.
Ans. It is not absurd, that a Father natural, as a private man, should be subject to his Son; even that Jesse, and his elder brother, the Lord of all the rest, be subject to David their King. Royalists say, Our late Queen, being supreme Magistrate, might by Law have put to death her own husband, for adultery or murder.
Ans. It is not absurd, that a Father naturall, as a private man, should be subject to his Sonne; even that Jesse, and his elder brother, the Lord of all the rest, be subject to David their King. Royalists say, Our late Queen, being supreme Magistrate, might by Law have put to death her own husband, for adulterie or murther.
2. The Parliament should not be both Accuser, Judge, and Witness ⟨p. 211⟩in their own cause. 1. It is the Cause of Religion, of God, of Protestants, and of the whole people. 2. The oppressed accuse: there is no need of witnesses in raising arms against the Subjects. 3. The P. Prelate could not object this, if against the Imperial laws the King were both Party and Judge in his own cause, and in these acts of arbitrary power, which he hath done, through bad counsel, in wronging Fundamental laws, raising arms against his subjects, bringing in foreign enemies into both his Kingdoms, &c. Now this is properly the cause of the King, as he is a man; and his own cause, not the cause of God, and by no Law of nature, reason, or Imperial Statutes can he be both Judge and party.
2. The Parliament should not be both Accuser, Iudge, and Witnesse ⟨p. 211⟩in their own cause. 1. It is the Cause of Religion, of God, of Protestants, and of the whole people. 2. The oppressed accuse: there is no need of witnesses in raising armes against the Subjects. 3. The P. Prelate could not object this, if against the Imperiall laws the King were both Partie and Iudge in his own cause, and in these acts of arbitrarie power, which he hath done, through bad counsell, in wronging Fundamentall lawes, raising armes against his subjects, bringing in forraigne enemies into both his Kingdomes, &c. Now this is properly the cause of the King, as he is a man; and his owne cause, not the cause of God, and by no Law of nature, reason, or Imperiall Statutes can he be both Iudge and party.