A92147:746
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.
Lex, Rex. › Question 26: QUEST. XXVI. Whether the King be above the Law or no?
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.
The assumption is evident: for then the King, turning Tyrant, might ⟨p. 236⟩set an Army of Turks, Jews, cruel Papists, to destroy the Church 1of God, without all fear of Law or punishment. Yea, this is contrary to the doctrine of Royalists: for, Winzetus▪ adversus Buchananum, p. 275. saith of Nero, that he seeking to destroy the Senate and people of Rome, and seeking to make new laws for himself, excidit jure Regni, lost right to the Kingdom. And Barclai•s advers. Monarcho-Machous, l. 3. c. ult. p. 212, 213. saith, A Tyrant, such as Caligula, spoliare see jure Regni, spoileth himself of the right to the2 Crown. And in that same place: Regem, si regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit, regno cadere: If the King sell his Kingdom, he loseth the title to the Crown. Grotius de jure belli & pacis, l. 1. c. 4. n. 7, Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur, amittit regnum: If he turn Enemy to the Kingdom, for their destruction, he loseth his Kingdom, because (saith he) Voluntas imperandi, & voluntas perdendi, simul consistere non possunt: A will or mind to govern, and to destroy, cannot consist together in one. Now if this be true, that a King turning Tyrant, loseth title to the Crown; this is either a falling from his Royal title only in Gods court; or it is a losing of it before men, and in the court of his Subjects. If the former be said, 1. He is no King, having before God lost his Royal title: and yet the people is to obey him as the Minister of God, and a power from God, when as he is no such thing. 2. In vain do these Authors provide remedies to save the people from a Tyrannous waster of the people, if they speak of a Tyrant who is no King in Gods court only, and yet remaineth a King to the people in regard of the Law: for the places speak of Remedies that God hath provided against Tyrants cum titulo, such as are lawful Kings, but turn Tyrants. Now by this they provide no remedy at all, if only in Gods court, and not in Mans court also, a Tyrant lose his title. As for Tyrants sine titulo, such as usurp the throne, and have no just claim to it: Barclaius adver. Monarcho-Ma. l. 4. c. 10. p. 268. saith, Any private man may kill him, as a public enemy of the State: but if he lose his title to the Crown in the court of Men, then is there, 1. a Court on Earth to judge the King, and so he is under the coactive power of a Law. 2.