abstract: Rutherford's work represented a direct challenge to the 17th Century theory of the Divine right of kings, but neither he nor Knox had much direct influence on the founding fathers of America. Their indirect influence, however, was profound.

Skip Navigation

by Oliver Woods

Who was Samuel Rutherford? Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) was a Scottish Presbyterian minister who played an instrumental role in resisting the tyranny of the Tudor kings and formulating the doctrine of the Westminster Confession, the most widely used catechism in the Western world.

Historical Context

Richard Hooker eloquently expounded a Divine Right theory during the final years of the Elizabethan era. Both James I and Charles I had been quick to assert this prerogative in persecuting Puritan clergy in England and Scotland: a prelude to the Puritan Revolution. For example, James I believed that he was ordained to serve "the weal of the people" (as defined by the king), but not "the will of the people."

Summary of Rutherford's Teaching

Samuel Rutherford was in many ways the heir and expositor of the legacy left by his predecessor John Knox (1513-1572) in the previous century. Knox had rightly rejected Calvin's dalliance with natural law by insisting on the submission of the magistrate to the law of God alone. Submission was confirmed by means of the ordination or inauguration oath.

On the negative side, Knox, contrary to Calvin, taught the right of the people to rise up against tyranny whether led by the lower magistrate, or not. Rutherford followed Knox closely in Lex, Rex, which was written in 1644, to refute a treatise on the Divine right of Kings by John Maxwell. Calvin, on the other hand, had taught that the people are limited to passive resistance when ordered to disobey the direct commands of God by a tyrannical ruler. "And let us reflect," he cautioned, "that it belongs not to us to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings."1

However, it was the responsibility of the lower magistrate to interpose himself between the people and the tyrant in such cases. The Lord "...raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants, and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny, and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed."2 Calvin taught that Presbyterian elders were to be elected by the people. This bottom-up approach was transplanted into the civil realm in the republican form, wherein officials were elected by the people, but then ruled in accordance with the Bible as the ultimate source of authority. By transferring the locus of governing authority to "the people," Rutherford was interjecting a species of incipient democracy and undercutting the very republicanism he sought to defend.

Implications for Subsequent History

Rutherford's work represented a direct challenge to the 17th Century theory of the "Divine right of kings," but neither he nor Knox had much direct influence on the founding fathers of America. Their indirect influence, however, was profound via immediate successors who secularized their theories. Historian Richard Greaves observes, "...Following biblical precepts as he understood them, he [Knox] extended the right of rebellion against idolatrous and tyrannical sovereigns from magistrates and nobility to the elect...."3 This is a prescription for democracy, which ultimately returns to tyranny. The next step was taken by reformer George Buchanan who "followed Knox in granting the whole people the right of revolution, but differed in making it more of a natural political right than a scriptural, covenantally defined religious duty."4

Rutherford followed suit. "...for the fountain of power remaineth most eminently in the people," he wrote, "therefore it is unlimited in the people, and bounded and limited in the king, and so less in the king than in the people."5 It is but a short step from Rutherford's position to the secularized social contract theory, a step taken not much later by another less orthodox son of the Puritans, John Locke. The Americans followed Locke in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, positing the "just power of government in the consent of the governed." In the U.S. Constitution the governing authority of God is replaced by "We the People" and the biblical requirement for the magistrate to swear allegiance to God and to govern according to the Bible is forbidden (Art. VI, Clause 3). Across the Channel, Rousseau traced this path into an even more radical version of the social compact, which culminated in the lawless and bloody coup known as the French Revolution.

Biblical Analysis

Rutherford is to be praised for his teaching that the king is subject to the law of God. The Bible has nothing but condemnation for those who "frame mischief by a law" and declares rhetorically, "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" (Ps. 94:20). Deuteronomy 17 is the classic passage in defense of Lex, Rex, wherein the king is charged to "...read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law...." (Deut. 17:19).

Unfortunately, Rutherford compromised this strong doctrine when he posited the source of governing authority in "the people," an overreaction to the Divine Right teaching that kings are accountable to none but God. Although he often quotes the Bible in defense of this position, it is our opinion that he has not adequately compared Scripture with scripture to arrive at a balanced doctrine of civil authority. It is true that God has granted "the people" the privilege of nominating their rulers in both church and state (Deut. 1:13), but they are thereafter vested with governing authority by God alone in accord with Romans 13:1. This is accomplished by the ordination or "swearing in" ceremony. This proscribes the people rising up enmass, or as lone assassins, to overthrow "the Lord's anointed"; even David was constrained from killing Saul when given the opportunity. Their appeal must be to God in prayer and to the lesser magistrate, the model we find repeatedly in the book of Judges.

Corrective or Prescriptive Actions

We must not fail to adopt Rutherford's stress on God's law as our only political standard, but must abandon his notion that governing authority resides in the people rather than in God. This teaching lies at the heart of secular theories of social contract and democracy.

Oliver Woods is Headmaster of Classical Free Virtual Academy, "The World's Only Real-time Classical Christian Academy." Serving grades 7 to 12, 40% of the courses at Classical Free are tuition-free, mostly online. In addition to traditional classes such as math and science, the Academy offers courses unique to the classical perspective such as logic, Latin, rhetoric, debate and the Great Books evaluated from a theonomic perspective. Free courses may be taken at any time, but students may register for instructor taught courses starting May 1 at http://www.classicalfree.org/.

Endnotes

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.29.

2. Ibid., 4.20.30.

3. Richard Greaves, Theology & Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, p. 18.

4. Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World (: Phillipsburg, NJ: Puritan and Reformed Publishing Company, 1992), p. 61.

5. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex (Edinburgh, Scotland: Robert Ogle and Oliver & Boyd, 1644), p. 82.