A92147:804
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.
1. Because then inferior Judges should not be interpreters of the Law, but inferior Judges are no less essentially Judges, then the King. Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. L Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1, 2. and so by Office must interpret the Law, else they cannot give sentence according to their conscience and equity, now exponing of ⟨p. 253⟩the Law judicially is an act of judging, and so a personal and incommunicable act, so as I can no more judge and expone the Law according to another mans conscience, then I can believe with another mans soul, or understand with another mans understanding,1 see with another mans eye: The Kings pleasure therefore cannot be the rule of the inferior Judges conscience, for he giveth an immediate account to God the Judge of all, of a just or an unjust sentence. Suppose Caesar shall expone the Law to Pilate, that Christ deserveth to dye the death, yet Pilate is not in conscience to expone the Law so. If therefore inferior Judges judge for the King, they judge only by power borrowed from the King, not by the pleasure, will, or command of the King thus and thus exponing the Law, ergo the King cannot be the sole interpreter of the Law.
1. Because then inferiour Iudges should not be interpreters of the Law, but inferiour Iudges are no lesse essentially Iudges, then the King. Deut. 1. 17. 2 Chron. 19. 6. L Pet. 2. 14. Rom. 13. 1, 2. and so by Office must interpret the Law, else they cannot give sentence according to their conscience and equity, now exponing of ⟨p. 253⟩the Law judicially is an act of judging, and so a personall and incommunicable act, so as I can no more judge and expone the Law according to another mans conscience, then I can beleeve with another mans soule, or understand with another mans understanding,