Covenanter Witness Vol. 86 - Rparchives.org

For Christ's Crown and CovenantLex Rex:Law Over PrinceMr. fames Robb*Lex Rex or The Law And The Prince was a bookwritten in a time of turmoil and an age of religious controversy.The author of this treatise on civil government andits relationship to God was Samuel Rutherford, who at thetime of publication in 1644, was a member of the WestminsterAssembly.Rutherford was born in the parish of Nisbet, inRoxburgshire, Scotland, entering the University at Edinburgh,at the age of nineteen. After completing his studies,Rutherford was licensed to preach the Gospel. Scotland wasthen under the control of Episcopal bishops. Rutherford'sopposition to their liturgies and dogmas resulted in hisbanishment to Aberdeen, until the upheaval which accompaniedthe National Covenant of 1638. Shortlythereafter, Rutherford was appointed professor of divinity atthe University of St. Andrews; and subsequently was sentwith Baillie, Gillespie, and Henderson to the WestminsterAssembly.Lex Rex was written specifically to refute the work ofJohn Maxwell, an excommunicated Episcopalian bishop.Maxwell in his work entitled Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestashad claimed that the authority of the king was derived fromGod alone; thus absolute and passive obedience was requiredfrom the subjects of the king. Rutherford's position as expressedin Lex Rex disclaimed the divine right of kings andwas considered by the government as "inveighing againstmonarchic and laying ground for rebellion." The governmentlater ordered the book to be burned by the hand of thecommon hangman in Edinburgh. Similiar treatmentfollowed in St. Andrews and London. (1)The radical nature of Rutherford's position was not inhis political opposition to the tyranny of absolute monarchy,but in his foundation in Scripture. Rutherford was not thefirst to challenge the rights of the crown in Scotland. Thephilosophical predecessor to Lex Rex was the politicaldialogue De Jure Regni Apud Scotos authored by GeorgeBuchanan, and condemned by Parliament in 1584. Whileboth works renounce absolute and passive obedience to themonarch, Buchanan's work is much shorter and lacks theScriptural exegesis oiLex Rex, Bishop Guthrie, in describingthe reaction of the Westminster Assembly to Lex Rex statesthat "Buchanan's treatise was looked upon as an oracle, itwas slighted as not anti-monarchial enough, and Rutherford'sLex Rex only thought authentic." (2)Francis Schaefer is one modern day theologian who hasrecognised the relevance of Lex Rex. In his recent article in8Christianity Today, "The Irrationality of ModernThought" Schaefer acknowledges the basic tenet expressedin Lex Rex that God is the foundation of government, andcomments on its contribution to American culture.God has spoken; there was a base upon which tobuild law . . . The American Constitution restedupon Rex Lex. toned down through Locke, throughsuch men as Jefferson. . {Christianity Today,December 4, 1970, p. 13)Schaefer has captured the essentials of Rutherford, butthere is the danger that Lex Rex will be interpreted as aChristian defense of democracy. While many elements of LexRex appear to be democratic, Rutherford was indifferent topolitical structure. Aristocracy was nothing more thanenlarged monarchy; and monarchy was little more thancontracted aristocracy. (3) There was no more reason fordemocracy than for monarchy. (4)Rutherford was attempting to show from Scripture thecorrect relationship between those in authority and thosesubject to authority. In doing so, he had to refute severalerrors concerning the theory that kings ruled by divine right.Rutherford agreed that the kingly office was from God; but itcame to the king from the people. Judges 9:6:' 'The men ofShechem made Abimelech king" ; I Samuel 11:15: "Andall the people went to Gilgal and there they made Saul kingbefore the Lord." Further proof of this argument is found inthe actions of David. After David was anointed by Samuel,David remained a private man, until the people made himking at Hebron. If Samuel's actions had made David formallya king, then there would have been two kings for onekingdom, Saul and David. Yet David acknowledged Saul asthe Lord's anointed, after his own anointing by Samuel.While God was acting as the principal agent through Samuelin choosing David, it was the people who conferred thekingly office on him. (5)Because the power of electing a king resided in thepeople, it was impossible to make a king absolute in powerover the people. Both king and subject were subordinate toJesus Christ. Modern democracy has distorted this truth byasserting that the source of civil power is solely from thepeople. The idea that one man exercising one vote wouldeventually bring political Utopia was foreign to Rutherford.Totalitarian regimes find their source of civil authority in thedictatorship of the elite. Both views are man-centered andcan only result in endless power struggles.