A92147:935
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.
If ⟨p. 348⟩a leper King could not actually sit upon the throne, but must be cut off from the house of the Lord, because of an express law of God, these being inconsistent, that a King remaining amongst Gods people, ruling and reigning, should keep company with the Church of God, and yet be a leper who was to be cut off, by a Divine law from the Church, now I persuade my self that far less can he actually reign in the full use of the power of the sword, if he use the sword to cut off thousands of innocent people, because murdering the innocent and fatherless, and Royal governing in Righteousness and Godliness are more inconsistent, by Gods law, being morally opposite, then remaining a governor of the people, and the disease of leprosy, are incompatible. 6. I think not much that Barcley saith cont. Monar. l 5. c. 11. Uzziah remained King, after he was removed from the congregation for leprosy. 1. Because that toucheth the question of dethroning Kings, this is an argument brought for violent resisting of Kings, and that the people did resume all power from Uzziah, and put it in the hand of Jotham his son, who was over the Kings house, judging the people of the land. ver. 21. And by this same reason the Parliaments of both Kingdoms may resume the power once given to the King, when he hath proved more unfit to govern morally, then Uzziah was ceremonially, that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this case. 2. If the priests did execute a ceremonial law upon King Uzziah. Far more may the three estates of Scotland, and the two houses of Parliament 1of England execute the moral law of God on their King.
If ⟨p. 348⟩a leper King could not actually sit upon the throne, but must be cut off from the house of the Lord, because of an expresse law of God, these being inconsistent, that a King remaining amongst Gods people, ruling and raigning, should keep company with the Church of God, and yet be a leper who was to be cut off, by a Divine law from the Church, now I perswade my self that far lesse can he actually raigne in the full use of the power of the sword, if he use the sword to cut off thousands of innocent people, because murthering the innocent and fatherles, and Royall governing in Righteousnesse and Godlinesse are more inconsistent, by Gods law, being morally opposite, then remaining a governour of the people, and the disease of leprosie, are incompatible. 6. I think not much that Barcley saith cont. Monar. l 5. c. 11. Vzziah remained King, after he was removed from the congregation for leprosie. 1. Because that toucheth the question of dethroning Kings, this is an argument brought for violent resisting of Kings, and that the people did resume all power from Vzziah, and put it in the hand of Iotham his son, who was over the Kings house, judging the people of the land. ver. 21. And by this same reason the Parliaments of both Kingdomes may resume the power once given to the King, when he hath proved more unfit to governe morally, then Vzziah was ceremonially, that he ought not to judge the people of the land in this case. 2. If the priests did execute a ceremoniall law upon King Vzziah. Far more may the three estates of Scotland, and the two houses of Parliament