Skip to content

Title page of A treatise of civil policy, London, 1656

A92147:954

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.

Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661London, : 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

[34], 438 p. · 210k words · Wing R2396 · ESTC R207911

Title page typeset from the transcription.

Lex, Rex. › Question 34: QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulness of defen…Lex, Rex. › Question 34: QUEST. XXXIIII. Whether Royalists by cogent reasons do prove the unlawfulnesse of defen…

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.

[ Earlier:951–966 of 1,374

:951p. 355

Ans. Valeat totum, we are to submit to wicked Kings, & wicked parents, because Kings, and parents: but when it cometh to actual submission, we are to submit to neither but in the Lord; the question is not touching subjection to a Prince, let him be Nero, but if in acts of Tyranny we may not deny subjection: there be great odds betwixt wicked rulers, and rulers commanding or punishing unjustly.

Ans. Valeat totum, we are to submit to wicked Kings, & wicked parents, because Kings, and parents: but when it cometh to actuall submission, we are to submit to neither but in the Lord; the question is not touching subjection to a Prince, let him be Nero, but if in acts of Tyranny we may not deny subjection: there be great odds betwixt wicked rulers, and rulers commanding or punishing unjustly.

:952p. 355

Obj. 2. Arnisaeus c. 3. n. 9. We may resist an inferior magistrate. Ergo, we may resist the supreme, it followeth not, for an inferior judge hath a Majesty infiction only, not properly: treason is, or can only be committed against the King, the obligation to inferior judges is only for the prince, the person of none is sacred and inviolable but the Kings.

Obj. 2. Arnisaeus c. 3. n. 9. We may resist an inferior magistrate. Ergo, we may resist the supreame, it followeth not, for an inferiour judge hath a Majesty infiction onely, not properly: treason is, or can onely be committed against the King, the obligation to inferiour judges is onely for the prince, the person of none is sacred and inviolable but the Kings.

:953p. 355–356

Ans. We obey parents, masters, kings, upon this formal ground, because they are Gods deputies, and set over us, not by man, but by God: So that not only are we to obey them because what they command is good and just (such a sort of obedience an equal owes to the counsel of either equal or inferior) but also by virtue of

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

Position

Cited: :954
On this page: :951–966
Section: :949–996
Whole work: 1,374 passages

Cite

Samuel Rutherford, A treatise of civil policy (London,, 1656), q. 34, p. 356. EEBO-TCP A92147.

Or select words in any passage to make an image of them.

The book

Title as printed: 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.
Author: Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661
Place: London
Year: 1656
Imprint: 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]
Size: [34], 438 p.
Words: 210,399
Catalogue: Wing R2396 · ESTC R207911
Text: EEBO-TCP A92147

Passages: 1,374
Sections: 50

The author

Samuel Rutherford 1600?–1661

PuritansScotland

Scottish theologian and commissioner to the Westminster Assembly.

:965p. 357–358

Ans. 1. Tremel. saith well, that the scope is that a man go not from the Kings lawful command in passion and rebellion. Vatab. If thou go from the King in disgrace, strive to be reconciled to him quickly. Cajetan. Use not Kings too familiarly, by coming too quickly to them, or going too hastily from them. Plutarch, Cum rege agendum ut cum rogo, neither too near this fire, nor too far off. Those have smarted who have been too great in their favour, Ahasuerus slew Haman, Alexander so served Clitus, and Tiberius Sejanus, and Nero Seneca. But the sense is clear, rebellion is forbidden, not resistance, so the hebrew, [Greek or Hebrew] stand not in an evil matter, or in a rebellion. And he dehorteth from rebellion against the King, by an argument taken from his power. 3. For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him. 4. Where the word of a King is, there is power, And who may say unto him, What doest thou? The meaning is in way of justice, he is armed with power that cannot be resisted, other ways Samuel ⟨p. 358⟩said to King Saul, 1 Sam. 13. 13. Thou hast done foolishly. Elijah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done? And the Prophets were to rebuke sin in Kings, 2 King. 3. 14. Jer. 1. 28. Chap. 22. 3. Hos. 5. 1, 2. And though Solomon here give them a power, he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto; but de jure they are under a Law, Deut. 17. 18.

Ans. 1. Tremel. saith well, that the scope is that a man go not from the Kings lawfull command in passion and rebellion. Vatab. If thou go from the King in disgrace, strive to be reconciled to him quickly. Cajetan. Vse not Kings too familiarly, by comming too quickly to them, or going too hastily from them. Plutarch, Cum rege agendum ut cum rogo, neither too neere this fire, nor too farre off. Those have smarted who have been too great in their favour, Ahasuerus slew Haman, Alexander so served Clitus, and Tiberius Sejanus, and Nero Seneca. But the sence is cleare, rebellion is forbidden, not resistance, so the hebrew, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 stand not in an evil matter, or in a rebellion. And he dehorteth from rebellion against the King, by an argument taken from his power. 3. For he doth whatsoever pleaseth him. 4. Where the word of a King is, there is power, And who may say unto him, What doest thou? The meaning is in way of justice, he is armed with power that cannot be resisted, other wayes Samuel ⟨p. 358⟩said to King Saul, 1 Sam. 13. 13. Thou hast done foolishly. Eliah said more to Ahab then What hast thou done? And the Prophets were to rebuke sinne in Kings, 2 King. 3. 14. Ier. 1. 28. Chap. 22. 3. Hos. 5. 1, 2. And though Solomon here give them a power, he speaketh of Kings as they are de facto; but de jure they are under a Law, Deut. 17. 18.

:966p. 358–359

If the meaning be, as Royalists dream, he doth whatsoever he¹ will or desireth, as a Prince, by his royal, that is, his legal will, by which he is lex animata, a breathing law; we shall own that as truth, and it is nothing against us. But if the meaning be, that De jure, as King, he doth whatsoever he will, by the absolute supremacy of Royal will above all law and reason; then Joram should by law as King, take Elisha's head away, and Elisha resisted God, in saying, What doth the King? and he sinned in commanding to deal roughly with the Kings messenger, and hold him at the door: then the fourscore valiant Priests, who said to King Uzziah, What dost thou? resisted him, in burning incense, which he desired to do, sinned; Then Pharaoh, who said, Ezech. 29. 3. The river Nilus is mine, I have made it for my self: and the King of Tyre, Ezek. 28. 2. I am God, I sit in the seat of God, should not be controlled by the Prophets, and no man should say to them, What sayest thou? Did Cyrus as a King, with a Royal power from God, and jure regio, be angry at the river Gyndes, because it drowned one of his horses, and punish it, by dividing it in 130. Channels? Sen. l. 3. de ira, c. 21. And did Xerxes, jure regio, by a Royal power given of² God, when Hellespontus had cast down his bridges, command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea, and that it should be cast in fetters? And our Royalists will have these mad fools, doing these acts of blasphemous insolence against heaven, to be honoured as Kings, and to act those acts by a regal power. But hear, flatterers, a Royal power is the good gift of God, a lawful and just power. A King acting and speaking as a King, speaketh and acteth Law and Justice. A power to blaspheme is not a lawful power; they did and spake these things with a humane and a sinful will, if therefore this be the Royalists meaning, as Kings, 1. They are absolute, and so the limited and elected King is no King. 2. The King as King is above Gods Law, put on him by God, Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill. 4. It were unlawful to say to the King of Cyrus, What sayest thou? Thou are not ⟨p. 359⟩God, according to this vain sense of Royalists.

If the meaning be, as Royalists dreame, he doth whatsoever hee¹ will or desireth, as a Prince, by his royall, that is, his legall will, by which he is lex animata, a breathing law; we shall owne that as truth, and it is nothing against us. But if the meaning be, that De jure, as King, he doth whatsoever he will, by the absolute supremacie of Royall will above all law and reason; then Ioram should by law as King, take Elisha's head away, and Elisha resisted God, in saying, What doth the King? and he sinned in commanding to deal rougbly with the Kings messenger, and hold him at the doore: then the fourescore valiant Priests, who said to King Vzziah, What dost thou? resisted him, in burning incense, which he desired to doe, sinned; Then Pharaoh, who said, Ezech. 29. 3. The river Nilus is mine, I have made it for my selfe: and the King of Tyrus, Ezek. 28. 2. I am God, I sit in the seat of God, should not be controlled by the Prophets, and no man should say to them, What sayest thou? Did Cyrus as a King, with a Royall power from God, and jure regio, be angry at the river Gyndes, because it drowned one of his horses, and punish it, by dividing it in 130. Channels? Sen. l. 3. de ira, c. 21. And did Xerxes, jure regio, by a Royall power given of² God, when Hellespontus had cast downe his bridges, command that three hundred whips should be inflicted on that little sea, and that it should be cast in fetters? And our Royalists will have these mad fooles, doing these acts of blasphemous insolencie against heaven, to be honoured as Kings, and to act those acts by a regall power. But heare, flatterers, a Royall power is the good gift of God, a lawfull and just power. A King acting and speaking as a King, speaketh and acteth Law and Justice. A power to blaspheme is not a lawfull power; they did and spake these things with a humane and a sinfull will, if therefore this be the Royalists meaning, as Kings, 1. They are absolute, and so the limited and elected King is no King. 2. The King as King is above Gods Law, put on him by God, Deut. 17. 3. His will is the measure of good and ill. 4. It were unlawfull to say to the King of Cyrus, What sayest thou? Thou are not ⟨p. 359⟩God, according to this vaine sense of Royalists.

1[Greek or Hebrew]〈non-Latin alphabet〉
2Herod. l. 7. de Xerxe.