John Clarke
[Originally Published in The Standard Bearer,
vol. 65, no. 13 (April 1989)]
Samuel Rutherford was the leading theologian in Scotland during the
first half of the 17th century. To most of us he is probably best known by his
letters, said by Spurgeon to be “the nearest thing to inspiration which can be
found in all the writings of mere men.” But this is not his only work. He wrote
extensively against Arminianism and as a defender of Presbyterian church
government. His fame was soon established. He was made Professor of Divinity of
St. Andrews and was more than once invited to serve as a Professor of Theology
at Utrecht. As one of the Scottish Divines who took part in the Westminster
Assembly, he had a prominent and active role in drawing up the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
His great treatise on civil government, entitled Lex, Rex: The Law and the Prince, was published in 1644. Its publication was occasioned by the appearance of a book by John Maxwell, an Episcopalian, who contended for the right of kings to rule independently of parliaments and people, and required of the people passive obedience in the most absolute and unqualified terms. This belief in the absolutism of the divine right of kings was held and practiced by the Stuart kings who ruled throughout most of the 17th century in Scotland.
The opposition expressed against this belief by Rutherford was not the first in Scottish Presbyterian history. Almost a century before, John Knox’s memorable reply to the question put to him by Queen Mary, “Think you that the subjects having the power may resist their princes?” was this:
If princes exceed their power, no
doubt they may be resisted, even by power. For no greater honour is to be given
to kings than God has commanded to be given to father and mother. But the
father may be struck with a frenzy, in which he would slay his children. Now,
Madam, if the children arise, join together, apprehend their father, take the
sword from him, bind his hands, keep him in prison till the frenzy is over,
think you, Madam, that the children do any wrong? Even so, Madam, it is with
princes that would murder the children of God that are subject to them.
Nor was it the last to be published on this subject amongst Scottish Presbyterians. It was followed in 1687 by Alexander Shields book, A Hind Let Loose, which can be ranked almost with Rutherford’s own as a study in political science, and is in line with the thinking of Rutherford and the early Scottish Reformers.
Although Rutherford’s arguments are particularly directed toward the form of government that existed in his day, namely, a monarchy, the principles he expounds have a much wider application. Through forty-four chapters, or “Questions,” Rutherford develops his argument. The book itself, according to Dr. Hume Brown, is “tediously pedantic,” and the reading of it for us today is not without difficulty. Nevertheless, the reader who perseveres will find a work of real power, and amidst the minute details will discover the passion of a man who has a great love for liberty.
At the outset, Rutherford states the source of all government. Government is established not only by divine law but also by “natural law.” This law does not exist by itself but is the result of God’s having made human beings with the desire to join together and provide themselves with government. Rutherford insists that all men are born free, and that by birth one does not have authority over others. “No man cometh out of the womb with a diadem on his head or a sceptre in his hand.” The authority to rule must come from the people as a whole, since it is to them that God has given this authority by nature. He accepts that the authority of the king is a trust originating with God, but he insists that it reaches the king by the suffrages of the people. He asks,
Whence is it that this man rather
than that man is crowned king? and whence is it—from God immediately and
only—or is it from the people also and their free choice? For the pastor and
the doctor’s office is from Christ only, but that John rather than Thomas be
the doctor or the pastor is from the will and choice of men. The royal power is
three ways in the people: 1). Radically and virtually, as in the first subject.
2) Collative
vel communicatue, by way of free donation, they giving it to this man, not to
that man that he may rule over them. 3) Limitate—they giving it so
as these three acts remain with the people (1) that they may measure it out by
ounce weights, so much royal power, no more and no less, (2) so as they may
limit, moderate, and set banks and marches to the exercise, (3) that they give
it out, conditionate, upon this and that condition, that they may take it again
to themselves what they gave out upon condition if the condition be violated.
In support of this position that “the people make the king,” he quotes such scriptures as I Kings, chapter 16 where the people make Omri king and not Zimri, and Deuteronomy 17:15ff. The king having been chosen, there exists between the people and the king a covenant (II Sam. 5:3) which imposes certain obligations on both ruler and people. In answering the question, what happens if the king fails to fulfill his obligations and becomes a tyrant, we discover Rutherford’s views on resistance. Here, having regard for the due process of law, Rutherford, like Calvin, places the leadership of resistance in the hands of the lesser magistrates, they being “vicars” of God just as much as the king. Central also to Rutherford’s view of resistance is the importance of the Law: Lex est Rex. To the sovereignty of law, as agreeable to God’s Word, king and people must be subject. He states, “A king essentially is a living law, an absolute man is a creature they call a tyrant, and no lawful king.” To the question, who shall be judge between the king and the people when the people allege that the king is a tyrant, he replies, “There is a court of necessity no less than a court of justice and the fundamental laws must then speak; and it is with the people in this extremity as if they had no ruler.”
He believes in the justice of a defensive war against a king by his own subjects. He says, “If it be natural for one man to defend himself against the personal invasion of a prince, then it is natural and warranted to ten thousand, and to a whole kingdom, and what reason to defraud a kingdom of the benefits of self defence more than one man.” When the king acts as a tyrant he is acting contrary to his God-given power; and since such an abuse of power is not from God, it may be resisted. Hence Rutherford distinguishes between a ruler who is of God and a particular exercise of power that is not of God. He says, “That power which is contrary to law, and is evil and tyrannical, can tie none to subjection.”
In his explanation of Romans 13 he contends that this passage refers to the office of magistrate (the magistrate in abstracto), i.e., to a person using his power lawfully. When a king acts unlawfully, he is not a “higher power,” but is acting as an ordinary man. The lawful ruler is not to be resisted because he is not a terror to the good works but to the evil; but that ruler who persecutes the church becomes in these acts a terror to good works, and therefore the reason in the text proves that a man who does these things against the office is to be resisted. We are only to be subject to the power and royal authority in abstracto, in so far as, according to his office, he is not a terror to good works, but to evil.
In answering the question as to whether or not a kingdom may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest, he asserts, “Mere conquest by the sword, without the consent of the people, is no just title to the crown.” He accepts however that, “This title by conquest, through the people’s after consent, may be turned into a just title.”
Having looked briefly at some of Rutherford’s main arguments in his treatise, we conclude with a short analysis of the impact of his work. It was received with great excitement by the Scottish General Assembly. “Every member,” says Guthrie, “had in his hand the book lately published by Mr. Samuel Rutherford which was so idolized that whereas Buchanan’s treatise, De Jure Regni apud Scotos, was looked upon as an oracle, this coming forth, it was slighted as not anti-monarchical enough and Rutherford’s Lex, Rex only thought authentic.” The principles taught in Lex, Rex were those that undergirded the Puritan revolution in England. So this book is their best theoretical vindication. It became the political textbook of the covenanters and its arguments are their justification for their taking up arms against the king. It helped to lay the basis for the establishing of the constitutional monarchy in Britain; and the bringing over of William of Orange was the practical outworking of the principles of Lex, Rex. It has been said, “The principles of this book, however obnoxious they may be to the devotees of arbitrary power and passive obedience, are substantially the principles on which all government is founded and without which the civil magistrate would become a curse rather than a blessing to a country.”
“It is reported,” writes Howie, “that when King Charles saw Lex, Rex he said, it would scarcely ever get an answer, nor did it ever get any except what the Parliament in 1661 gave it, when they caused it to be burned at the Cross of Edinburgh by the hands of the hangman.”
* * * * * *
The Standard Bearer is North America’s oldest continuously published subscriber-based Reformed magazine.
If you are interested in subscribing, please click HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment