"Lex Rex" and its Implication

[RamistThomist]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Originally posted by Globachio


"Lex Rex" by Rutherford.
Any comments?

Absorb it. Imbibe it. The Anglish hated Rutherford for this book. It was burned by the public hangman. It was a declaration of war against tyranny. It applies the sovereignty of God to Politics. If God is ultimately sovereign, it follows that the State is not. The state's sovereignty finds meaning only in terms of God's sovereignty.

It is a clear exposition of the Rule of Law in society. In other words, just laws must be obeyed. There is a Law above the law. This king is subject to it.

Case study.
Charles I conspired to murder. THat is a capital crime. Is Chalres under the law? If yes, then he is to be executed. If no, then he has been placed on the same level as God.

 

[Scott]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Case study.
Charles I conspired to murder. THat is a capital crime. Is Chalres under the law? If yes, then he is to be executed. If no, then he has been placed on the same level as God.

David was not executed for his murder and adultery. How does your understanding account for that?

 

[crhoades]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Originally posted by Scott

Case study.
Charles I conspired to murder. THat is a capital crime. Is Chalres under the law? If yes, then he is to be executed. If no, then he has been placed on the same level as God.

David was not executed for his murder and adultery. How does your understanding account for that?

Were there two witnesses?

Deut. 17:5-7
5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deut. 19:15-21

15 One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

{might call for a thread split...congrats on the book purchases!}

[Edited on 1-30-2006 by crhoades]

 

[RamistThomist]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Originally posted by Scott

Case study.
Charles I conspired to murder. THat is a capital crime. Is Chalres under the law? If yes, then he is to be executed. If no, then he has been placed on the same level as God.

David was not executed for his murder and adultery. How does your understanding account for that?

For the moment I am just summarizing Rutherford and those Puritans who brought Charles I to justice. I have defended my views elsewhere.

Ditto to Chris.

 

[crhoades]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Originally posted by Scott

Case study.
Charles I conspired to murder. THat is a capital crime. Is Chalres under the law? If yes, then he is to be executed. If no, then he has been placed on the same level as God.

David was not executed for his murder and adultery. How does your understanding account for that?

Follow-up clarification...are you questioning the use of punishment in the case study - ie capital punishment for murder or bringing up the question holding kings accountable to law in general, or a third thing that I can't think of right now...

 

[Scott]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Did Rutherford address David?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Originally posted by Scott
Did Rutherford address David?

Yes. Rutherford responded to the objections of the Prelatic party that David was not punished by men for his crimes and said that the sanhedrin's failure to punish David is not a binding precedent that frees rulers from being above the law. His answer to the objection is found here.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

I'm not sure, ie could be wrong, but I don't think Rutherford, along with most of the Scots at the time, would have agreed with the case study.

 

[RamistThomist]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
I'm not sure, ie could be wrong, but I don't think Rutherford, along with most of the Scots at the time, would have agreed with the case study.

Sure. I was just pointing out that the case study (which actually happened) was consistent with the belief that there was a law above the law and kings were subject to it.

 

[Peter]

\"Lex Rex\" and its Implication

I believe Rutherford and the rest of the covenanters were opposed to the regicide committed by the English Usurper.

[Edited on 1-31-2006 by Peter]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Yep. Never have found the quote but supposedly Dabney bristled at comparisons of Cromwell to Stonewall Jackson and said the former died like a dog instead of a Christian like the latter.