And so we proceed to the deeds of Charles Gustav, which should be properly investigated, described and judged. The new philosophy of evaluating the political matters comes in De rebus to the foreground. The role of God, so important in the mediaeval order of things, at the end of the 17th century was diff used and expressed more subtly. Samuel Pufendorf, representing a new system of thought, based on the reinterpreted law of nature, stressed the importance of the social contract as the foundation for the society. Unquestionably, the King himself should be the keystone of such a structure granted that the monarch exercised absolute power. Loose forms of the social contract, such as the forma mixta in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, earned a sharp rebuke from the Philosopher.

In De rebus Pufendorf scarcely recalls the God (Deus), or Providence (Providentia). The last notion was understood at this age as the God's plan for the world. These terms can be found in Seven books, but they are most oft en presented as quotes from diplomatic acts, or inscriptions on medals, commemorative coins, engravings, etc. Much often will we be faced with the notion of fatum. Andreas Hellerstedt, who studied understanding of this concept in the early-18th-century Sweden, explains fatum as “chain of natural forces.” And it was obviously much more to the Pufendorf 's liking. Finally, not a Christian, but pagan idea of Fortuna – appears also in De rebus construed as luck which unexpectedly could spoil or destroy someone, randomly and without clear fault.

Deprived (at least partially) of the godly empowerment, the King had to confirm his authority. The legitimacy of his rule had to be constructed in an elaborated process, where different means and ways had to be implemented. We know a lot about various methods used in this early modern age, to wit classic work of Peter Burke The Fabrication of Louis XIV. The deeds of the monarch, presented in a scientific and objective way, had also to legitimize his claims to the throne. As proved by the study of Anna Maria Forssberg, Charles X Gustav was a great expert in the field of influencing the public opinion in his Kingdom, in this aspect he was a worthy successor to Gustav Vasa and Charles IX.