A92147:687
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.
5. That by a King he understandeth a Monarch, Judg. 17. and that such a one, as Saul, of Absolute power, and not a Judge, cannot be proved, for there were no Kings in Israel in the Judges days, the Government not being changed till near the end of Samuel's Government.
5. That by a King he understandeth a Monarch, Iudg. 17. and that such a one, as Saul, of Absolute power, and not a Iudge, cannot be proved, for there were no Kings in Israel in the Iudges daies, the Government not being changed till neare the end of Samuels Government.
6. And that they had no Judges, he saith, It is not imaginable, but I rather believe God then the Prelate, Every one did what was ⟨p. 224⟩right in his own eyes, because there was none to put ill doers to shame. Possible the Estates of Israel governed some way for mere necessity, but wanting a supreme Judge which they should have, they were loose: but this was not because where there is no King, as P. P. would insinuate, there was no Government, as is clear.
6. And that they had no Iudges, he saith, It is not imaginable, but I rather beleeve God then the Prelate, Every one did what was ⟨p. 224⟩right in his owne eyes, because there was none to put ill doers to shame. Possible the Estates of Israel governed some way for meere necessity, but wanting a supreme Iudge which they should have, they were loose: but this was not because where there is no King, as P. P. would insinuate, there was no Government, as is cleare.