What do you think?
Rate this book
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
(Orig. Fr. 1581, Eng. tr. 1622, 1689) — In 1683 it was ordered to be burned.
234 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1579
68 people are currently reading
346 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
December 9, 2017
Not an easy read by any means.
I've always wrestled with the seeming conflict between the revolutionary actions of the American founding fathers (many of whom held strong Christian beliefs) and the Christian idea of submission to one's government (particularly as expressed in Romans 13). How could a serious Christian rebel against their government and sign on to something like the Declaration of Independence?
A couple of years ago I wrote to Douglas Wilson, a Christian teacher known for his engagement on a lot of these issues and asked him this question. His response was to recommend this book and said many of the founding fathers were heavily influenced by it.
Vindiciae contra tyrannos was written in 1579 in France and wrestles with the questions of where submission to one's rulers stops. This work is heavily rooted in Scripture and logic to make its case and is very persuasive overall. The first two questions answered address whether or not subjects are bound to obey or resist a ruler who is breaking divine law (the answer is firstly that they are not bound to obey, which seems obvious, but that they are actually bound to resist, which doesn't seem as obvious until the author makes the case using scripture for this duty to resist). The longest question addressed is when subjects can resist a ruler who is not breaking divine law but is governing poorly, and the answer, well-reasoned, is that the subjects can resist but should be led by an inferior magistrate or ruler. The fourth question, briefly answered, is as to whether or not foreign rulers can support a popular uprising in the circumstances of the first three questions.
Overall this is a detailed, thorough, challenging read. It compares to Puritan works from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Hard but worth the time investment if you want something to challenge your thinking.
I've always wrestled with the seeming conflict between the revolutionary actions of the American founding fathers (many of whom held strong Christian beliefs) and the Christian idea of submission to one's government (particularly as expressed in Romans 13). How could a serious Christian rebel against their government and sign on to something like the Declaration of Independence?
A couple of years ago I wrote to Douglas Wilson, a Christian teacher known for his engagement on a lot of these issues and asked him this question. His response was to recommend this book and said many of the founding fathers were heavily influenced by it.
Vindiciae contra tyrannos was written in 1579 in France and wrestles with the questions of where submission to one's rulers stops. This work is heavily rooted in Scripture and logic to make its case and is very persuasive overall. The first two questions answered address whether or not subjects are bound to obey or resist a ruler who is breaking divine law (the answer is firstly that they are not bound to obey, which seems obvious, but that they are actually bound to resist, which doesn't seem as obvious until the author makes the case using scripture for this duty to resist). The longest question addressed is when subjects can resist a ruler who is not breaking divine law but is governing poorly, and the answer, well-reasoned, is that the subjects can resist but should be led by an inferior magistrate or ruler. The fourth question, briefly answered, is as to whether or not foreign rulers can support a popular uprising in the circumstances of the first three questions.
Overall this is a detailed, thorough, challenging read. It compares to Puritan works from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Hard but worth the time investment if you want something to challenge your thinking.
July 3, 2021
"Always those are the greater number who are led by passion than those who are ruled by reason, and therefore tyranny has more servants than the commonwealth."
Good old fashioned syntax. Good Christian civics. This book taught me quite a few things regarding the duties of civil rulers and the duties of citizens. It's dry but full of important information and well-constructed answers to important questions. I don't think many of us, of this current time, have ever had any teaching on civics at all, let alone Scriptural civics. I certainly hadn't! It's worth the read. I give it 4 stars. I enjoyed it, you might too!
Good old fashioned syntax. Good Christian civics. This book taught me quite a few things regarding the duties of civil rulers and the duties of citizens. It's dry but full of important information and well-constructed answers to important questions. I don't think many of us, of this current time, have ever had any teaching on civics at all, let alone Scriptural civics. I certainly hadn't! It's worth the read. I give it 4 stars. I enjoyed it, you might too!
March 1, 2021
Really changed how think about what the bible says about kings and government. Had to look up a lot of classical references-- the author has an amazing, deep knowledge of history.
November 29, 2021
Foundational to every important war in American history, and absolutely crucial for our times. Written by an anonymous Huguenot, this book proves why Christians can, and indeed must, resist tyrants of every stripe in every age by whatever means God grants them.
A few gems:
"If a prince usurp the right of God, he is guilty of high treason and commits felony."
"If God commands one thing and the king commands the contrary, what is that proud man that would term him a rebel who refuses to obey the king, when else he must disobey God?"
"They obey Caesar while he commands in the quality of Caesar; but when Caesar passes his bounds, when he usurps that dominion which is none of his own, when he endeavors to assail the Throne of God, when he wars against the Sovereign Lord, they then esteem it reasonable to not obey Caesar."
"Peace cannot be well maintained without provision for wars."
"A tyrant disarms the people."
"The meanest private man may resist and lawfully oppose an intruding tyrant."
"The law against traitors [condemns] those who are negligent and careless to deliver their country oppressed with tyranny."
"A tyrant the more he is tolerated, the more he becomes intolerable."
"Must all men with joint courage and alacrity run to arms, as if God Himself from heaven had proclaimed wars and meant to join battle against tyrants."
"Cannot God when He pleases stir up particular and private persons to ruin a mighty and powerful tyranny?"
"He that hath means, and defends not the afflicted, is as much faulty as if he forsook his parents, or his friends, or his country in their distress."
"Those are not only tyrants which make other men slaves, but much more those who, having means to suppress and prevent such oppression, take no care to perform it."
"Repress the prince who invades the kingdom of Christ. Contain the tyrant within his own limits. Stretch forth your hand of compassion to the people afflicted."
A few gems:
"If a prince usurp the right of God, he is guilty of high treason and commits felony."
"If God commands one thing and the king commands the contrary, what is that proud man that would term him a rebel who refuses to obey the king, when else he must disobey God?"
"They obey Caesar while he commands in the quality of Caesar; but when Caesar passes his bounds, when he usurps that dominion which is none of his own, when he endeavors to assail the Throne of God, when he wars against the Sovereign Lord, they then esteem it reasonable to not obey Caesar."
"Peace cannot be well maintained without provision for wars."
"A tyrant disarms the people."
"The meanest private man may resist and lawfully oppose an intruding tyrant."
"The law against traitors [condemns] those who are negligent and careless to deliver their country oppressed with tyranny."
"A tyrant the more he is tolerated, the more he becomes intolerable."
"Must all men with joint courage and alacrity run to arms, as if God Himself from heaven had proclaimed wars and meant to join battle against tyrants."
"Cannot God when He pleases stir up particular and private persons to ruin a mighty and powerful tyranny?"
"He that hath means, and defends not the afflicted, is as much faulty as if he forsook his parents, or his friends, or his country in their distress."
"Those are not only tyrants which make other men slaves, but much more those who, having means to suppress and prevent such oppression, take no care to perform it."
"Repress the prince who invades the kingdom of Christ. Contain the tyrant within his own limits. Stretch forth your hand of compassion to the people afflicted."
October 21, 2020
A really dense read but worth plowing through. Grounded in Scripture with many applications for responding to tyranny today. Definitely will be going back as a reference.
April 22, 2024
Considers the critical question whether rebellion against tyranny is ever biblically justified. A cursory consideration of Romans 13 may lend one to say no; but Junius Brutus (a pseudonym) gives careful exegetical, legal, and historical situations to make a biblical case for an ordered resistance vis-a-vis the doctrine of the lesser magistrate, and the centrality of the covenant (or as later secularized under Locke would say, social contract) in the political life of the commonwealth. The work, though brief, is dense, and carefully articulated; and in my estimation, utterly compelling. Required reading.
September 9, 2022
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos is a fascinating read, but its doctrines are vastly improved upon by later (mostly English-speaking) writers. I found it more helpful as an historical resource as it establishes very strong link between Calvin's political thought and the right to resist. As an American lay-scholar, it provides legitimacy to the notion that Americans drew from a rich well of thought predating the enlightenment and refined overtime in the pews.
It's also interesting to note the historical context and style. Stephen Junius Brutus reads like Machiavelli after a Damascus Road experience with his numerous classical and historical references.
This is helpful, but if you have a jam-packed reading list, I wouldn't go out of my way for it like I would for Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex or John Milton's political prose.
It's also interesting to note the historical context and style. Stephen Junius Brutus reads like Machiavelli after a Damascus Road experience with his numerous classical and historical references.
This is helpful, but if you have a jam-packed reading list, I wouldn't go out of my way for it like I would for Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex or John Milton's political prose.
March 15, 2021
A well-written historical treatise defending the Huguenot resistance. While it is clear that later revolutionary philosophers would draw much from the framework established in this work, the vindicae tyrannos is not in itself a revolutionary work. It condemns tyrants but it urges their overthrow through proper legal means, through the resistance, not of the common peasantry, but of the lower magistrates and Christian princes. I found the reformed theological perspective on the duty of kings and magistrates of this time period to be fascinating.
Ps. I found the introduction to be rather amusing in that Sunshine seems to be a bit disappointed that Vindicae is not very American.
Ps. I found the introduction to be rather amusing in that Sunshine seems to be a bit disappointed that Vindicae is not very American.
October 13, 2025
Read for class. This one was fun because it felt very similar to lots of things I read in undergrad for my international relations degree.
Kinda long-winded! the points are few and far in between
Kinda long-winded! the points are few and far in between
February 13, 2021
The Huguenot author, going by the pseudonym of Stephen Junius Brutus, lays out a framework for opposing tyrants. He does this by several careful steps. I am not sure I agree with all of these points but each of them are well-made.
1. God is sovereign over all.
2. God’s law, the eternal law, is above both the king (or whoever is the highest civil authority) and the people.
3. The king is delegated authority from God to rule over his people “to the end he should administer justice to his people and defend them against all their enemies.” Brutus asserts that the king’s authority is conditional. The ruler “loses his right, and many times his realm also, if he despise God, if he plots with his enemies, and if he rebels against that Royal Majesty.”
4. While the people individually are inferior to the king, the people collectively are superior to the civil authority.
5. The king, the people, and God all exists in covenant together, whether they make this explicit or not—if not, natural law dictates that it is true nonetheless. There is a double covenant among the governors and the governed: (1) a covenant between God on the one side and the king and the People on the other, “that the people might be the people of God”; and (2) a second covenant between the king and the People, “that the people shall obey faithfully, and the king command justly.”
6. If either party breaks the covenant, then the non-breaching party may seek redress. If the king oversteps his boundaries, the people have a right—In fact, Brutus says that they have an obligation—to depose the king and remove him from office. Brutus claims that “if they [the People] neglect to perform this duty, they make themselves guilty of the same crime, and shall bear the punishment along with their king.”
7. Opposing a king or civil ruler is never permissible for private citizens. It can only be accomplished through lower magistrates. The private citizen, by himself, can only pray, petition, or flee the tyrannical government. He is not given the power of the sword. “[T]here are no other weapons to be used, but bended knees and humble hearts.”
8. There are two levels of lower magistrates: (1) those in a position under the king or supreme leader, but over the whole kingdom under him, and (2) those in lower positions of authority but still responsible for governing others. These two groups “are bound by the duty of their place, to succour the commonwealth, and to free it from the burden of tyrants, according to the rank and place which they hold of the people next after the king. The first [higher level] ought to deliver the whole kingdom from tyrannous oppression; the other, as tutors, that part of the kingdom whose protection they have undertaken; the duty of the former [the lower level] is to suppress the tyrant, that of the latter, to drive him from their confines.”
1. God is sovereign over all.
2. God’s law, the eternal law, is above both the king (or whoever is the highest civil authority) and the people.
3. The king is delegated authority from God to rule over his people “to the end he should administer justice to his people and defend them against all their enemies.” Brutus asserts that the king’s authority is conditional. The ruler “loses his right, and many times his realm also, if he despise God, if he plots with his enemies, and if he rebels against that Royal Majesty.”
4. While the people individually are inferior to the king, the people collectively are superior to the civil authority.
5. The king, the people, and God all exists in covenant together, whether they make this explicit or not—if not, natural law dictates that it is true nonetheless. There is a double covenant among the governors and the governed: (1) a covenant between God on the one side and the king and the People on the other, “that the people might be the people of God”; and (2) a second covenant between the king and the People, “that the people shall obey faithfully, and the king command justly.”
6. If either party breaks the covenant, then the non-breaching party may seek redress. If the king oversteps his boundaries, the people have a right—In fact, Brutus says that they have an obligation—to depose the king and remove him from office. Brutus claims that “if they [the People] neglect to perform this duty, they make themselves guilty of the same crime, and shall bear the punishment along with their king.”
7. Opposing a king or civil ruler is never permissible for private citizens. It can only be accomplished through lower magistrates. The private citizen, by himself, can only pray, petition, or flee the tyrannical government. He is not given the power of the sword. “[T]here are no other weapons to be used, but bended knees and humble hearts.”
8. There are two levels of lower magistrates: (1) those in a position under the king or supreme leader, but over the whole kingdom under him, and (2) those in lower positions of authority but still responsible for governing others. These two groups “are bound by the duty of their place, to succour the commonwealth, and to free it from the burden of tyrants, according to the rank and place which they hold of the people next after the king. The first [higher level] ought to deliver the whole kingdom from tyrannous oppression; the other, as tutors, that part of the kingdom whose protection they have undertaken; the duty of the former [the lower level] is to suppress the tyrant, that of the latter, to drive him from their confines.”
February 3, 2021
Very good book on the Christian response to tyranny. I read through this with a friend from church and took down notes as I went. I've included them below, they summarize the book's main points.
Q1: Whether subjects are bound and ought to obey prices, if they command that which is against the Law of God.
-rejection of the idea that we are to unconditionally obey kings
-Obey God, then the king. If the king commands disobedience to God, then we must disobey the king.
Q2: Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who does infringe the Law of God, or ruin his church: By whom, how, and how far it is lawful.
-Two covenants governing the civil sphere. One between God and the kingdom(king and people) and one between the king and the people.
-If the king breaks either covenant, he delegitimizes his rule and the people are freed from obedience to his rule.
Q2.I: Whether private men may resist by arms
-Individuals must disobey a wicked ruler. They may not rise up against the king with arms.
-The lesser magistrates are to protect their people from a tyrannical king, even to the extent of overthrowing the king.
Q2.II: Whether it be lawful to take arms for religion
-The church was not given the sword and may not rise up against civil authorities.
-Lesser magistrates must protect the church from a tyrannical king.
Q3: Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who does oppress or ruin a public state, and how far such resistance may be extended: By whom, how, and by what right or law is it permitted.
-True kings support resolutions against tyrants.
Q3.I: Kings are made by the people
-A true king must be installed by the people
-A king stands as an ambassador for God in the civil realm as well as a leader and protector of the people. He must be elected by both God and the people to be king.
Q3.II: The whole body of the people is above the king
- The king is over individual persons, but is under the collective persons
-Magistrates are elected to serve as mediators between the king and the people and must protect the people from a tyrannical king.
Q3.III: The assembly of the three estates
-The true friends of the king are friends of the whole kingdom. False friends only look for the gain of the king.
-Lesser magistrates must seek the gain of the kingdom as a whole, even to the extent of deposing the king.
Q3.IV: Whether time's prescription removes the people's right
-Rights don't change over time or under different rulers
Q3.V: Why kings were created
-Kings are to seek the good of the people by judging between good and evil and by protecting them from enemies
Q3.VI: Whether kings be above the law
-Laws restrain wickedness and provide the kingdom with order.
-A king that rejects the law rejects both God and the kingdom to seek after beastly desires
Q3.VII: Kings receive law from the people
-Laws are handed down to the king by the people. They are bound to keep the laws just as the people are and are to suffer the same punishments for breaking of the laws.
Q3.VIII: If the prince may make new laws
-The king may not make new laws. If a new law is needed, the king must call on the lesser magistrates to pass judgment
Q3.IX: Whether the prince have power of life and death over his subjects
-A king may only unsheathe the sword on those condemned by law
Q3.X: If the king may pardon those the law condemns
-The king must righteously pass judgment n the evildoer. Sparing one condemned is to be complicit in his wickedness and further endangers those the king has sworn to protect.
Q3.XI: Subjects are the king's brethren, not his slaves
-The people are brethren to the king and should be treated likewise.
Q3.XII: Whether the people's goods belong to the king
-The people own and steward their own property and the king may not seize or coerce it from them.
Q3.XIII: Whether the king be owner of the kingdom
-Kings hold an office over the kingdom and is sworn to protect and preserve that kingdom. They must therefore act on behalf of the kingdom and not for their own gain. Kings do not own the kingdom.
Q3.XIV: Whether the king be usufructor of the kingdom
-3 aspects of full ownership: Usus (use), fructus (fruit, profit), abusus (abuse, sale or destruction)
-Usufructor has freedom to use and profit from a property, but may not damage or sell that property.
-A king is not a usufructor because usufructor laws do not limit how one may use or profit from the property. The king must use and profit from the kingdom as it is laid out to him by law and by the lesser magistrates.
Q4: Whether neighbor princes may or are bound by law to aid the subjects of other princes, persecuted for true religion, as oppressed by manifest tyranny.
-A Christian king ought to wage war against a tyrannical king who persecutes the church so that he may deliver them from death.
-[This assumes that the king must defend and uphold the church]
-[This is also a very general statement dealing with Just War theory and needs further developed]
Q1: Whether subjects are bound and ought to obey prices, if they command that which is against the Law of God.
-rejection of the idea that we are to unconditionally obey kings
-Obey God, then the king. If the king commands disobedience to God, then we must disobey the king.
Q2: Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who does infringe the Law of God, or ruin his church: By whom, how, and how far it is lawful.
-Two covenants governing the civil sphere. One between God and the kingdom(king and people) and one between the king and the people.
-If the king breaks either covenant, he delegitimizes his rule and the people are freed from obedience to his rule.
Q2.I: Whether private men may resist by arms
-Individuals must disobey a wicked ruler. They may not rise up against the king with arms.
-The lesser magistrates are to protect their people from a tyrannical king, even to the extent of overthrowing the king.
Q2.II: Whether it be lawful to take arms for religion
-The church was not given the sword and may not rise up against civil authorities.
-Lesser magistrates must protect the church from a tyrannical king.
Q3: Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who does oppress or ruin a public state, and how far such resistance may be extended: By whom, how, and by what right or law is it permitted.
-True kings support resolutions against tyrants.
Q3.I: Kings are made by the people
-A true king must be installed by the people
-A king stands as an ambassador for God in the civil realm as well as a leader and protector of the people. He must be elected by both God and the people to be king.
Q3.II: The whole body of the people is above the king
- The king is over individual persons, but is under the collective persons
-Magistrates are elected to serve as mediators between the king and the people and must protect the people from a tyrannical king.
Q3.III: The assembly of the three estates
-The true friends of the king are friends of the whole kingdom. False friends only look for the gain of the king.
-Lesser magistrates must seek the gain of the kingdom as a whole, even to the extent of deposing the king.
Q3.IV: Whether time's prescription removes the people's right
-Rights don't change over time or under different rulers
Q3.V: Why kings were created
-Kings are to seek the good of the people by judging between good and evil and by protecting them from enemies
Q3.VI: Whether kings be above the law
-Laws restrain wickedness and provide the kingdom with order.
-A king that rejects the law rejects both God and the kingdom to seek after beastly desires
Q3.VII: Kings receive law from the people
-Laws are handed down to the king by the people. They are bound to keep the laws just as the people are and are to suffer the same punishments for breaking of the laws.
Q3.VIII: If the prince may make new laws
-The king may not make new laws. If a new law is needed, the king must call on the lesser magistrates to pass judgment
Q3.IX: Whether the prince have power of life and death over his subjects
-A king may only unsheathe the sword on those condemned by law
Q3.X: If the king may pardon those the law condemns
-The king must righteously pass judgment n the evildoer. Sparing one condemned is to be complicit in his wickedness and further endangers those the king has sworn to protect.
Q3.XI: Subjects are the king's brethren, not his slaves
-The people are brethren to the king and should be treated likewise.
Q3.XII: Whether the people's goods belong to the king
-The people own and steward their own property and the king may not seize or coerce it from them.
Q3.XIII: Whether the king be owner of the kingdom
-Kings hold an office over the kingdom and is sworn to protect and preserve that kingdom. They must therefore act on behalf of the kingdom and not for their own gain. Kings do not own the kingdom.
Q3.XIV: Whether the king be usufructor of the kingdom
-3 aspects of full ownership: Usus (use), fructus (fruit, profit), abusus (abuse, sale or destruction)
-Usufructor has freedom to use and profit from a property, but may not damage or sell that property.
-A king is not a usufructor because usufructor laws do not limit how one may use or profit from the property. The king must use and profit from the kingdom as it is laid out to him by law and by the lesser magistrates.
Q4: Whether neighbor princes may or are bound by law to aid the subjects of other princes, persecuted for true religion, as oppressed by manifest tyranny.
-A Christian king ought to wage war against a tyrannical king who persecutes the church so that he may deliver them from death.
-[This assumes that the king must defend and uphold the church]
-[This is also a very general statement dealing with Just War theory and needs further developed]
July 20, 2023
The main arguments, with their scriptural references are the following:
Princes and kings are chosen by God and placed in positions of authority by God
- Proverbs 8:15 “By me kings reign and rulers issue decrees that are just; by me princes govern”
- Daniel 2:21 “He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others.”
- Daniel 2:37-38 “You Majesty you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory”
- Daniel 4:17 “The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.”
- Romans 13:1 “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is not authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
No man, not even a King, has authority over God
- Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.”
- Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than human beings!”
As individuals, one by one, we are subject to those who have authority over us
- Ephesians 6:5-8 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.”
As a body of people, we have authority over the prince. When the people resist the King, they do so through their representative, such as a judge or magistrate
As individuals, we should not take up the sword unless we receive a divine calling from God to do so, such as Moses did
- John 18:11 “Put your sword away!’
Princes and kings must govern according to the law. Their role is to command justly and serve the commonwealth (maintain justice and righteousness)
- 1 Kings 10:9 “Praise be to the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the Lord’s eternal love for Israel, he has made you king to maintain justice and righteousness”
If a King disobeys God, then his subjects are removed from their obligation to obey him
- 1 Samuel 15:23 “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”
- 1 Kings 11:11-12 “So the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one your subordinates.”
- Joshua 22:10-34 “
- 1 Kings 8:19-40
- Jeroboam rejected the Lord and followed idols. Therefore, God rejected him as King
The prince who violates the law and disobeys God is a tyrant. “Any ruler who commands anything contrary to the law of God thereby forfeits his realm.”
“Rebellion is refusal to obey God. To obey the ruler when he commands what is against God’s law is thus truly rebellion.” It is lawful and required for people to rebel against a King that disobeys God
- 2 Samuel 21:1-9 -> King Saul broke his agreement with the Gibeonites and put many of them to death. Because the people tolerated the offense of their King, they also failed and were punished. As punishment, there was a famine in the land until David reconciled the offense
- 2 Samuel 24:10-25 -> King David did not put his trust in the Lord when he decided to run a census and number his people. Since the people cooperated with David’s actions in doing such an obvious offense, and since they failed to resist the King’s command, God punished all the Israelites
- 2 Kings 11 -> Jehoiada anoints a new king, Joash, because the Queen Athaliah was an unjust and evil Queen. Not only did Jehoiada overthrow Athaliah, he also killed her and removed the idols of Baal. Jehoiada’s actions are praised because he resisted the tyranny, not the kingdom
- 2 Chronicles 21:10 -> Libnah, a town of the Levites, removed itself from the authority of King Jehoram because “he had forsaken the Lord God of this fathers”
Princes and kings are chosen by God and placed in positions of authority by God
- Proverbs 8:15 “By me kings reign and rulers issue decrees that are just; by me princes govern”
- Daniel 2:21 “He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others.”
- Daniel 2:37-38 “You Majesty you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory”
- Daniel 4:17 “The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.”
- Romans 13:1 “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is not authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
No man, not even a King, has authority over God
- Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.”
- Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than human beings!”
As individuals, one by one, we are subject to those who have authority over us
- Ephesians 6:5-8 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.”
As a body of people, we have authority over the prince. When the people resist the King, they do so through their representative, such as a judge or magistrate
As individuals, we should not take up the sword unless we receive a divine calling from God to do so, such as Moses did
- John 18:11 “Put your sword away!’
Princes and kings must govern according to the law. Their role is to command justly and serve the commonwealth (maintain justice and righteousness)
- 1 Kings 10:9 “Praise be to the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the Lord’s eternal love for Israel, he has made you king to maintain justice and righteousness”
If a King disobeys God, then his subjects are removed from their obligation to obey him
- 1 Samuel 15:23 “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”
- 1 Kings 11:11-12 “So the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one your subordinates.”
- Joshua 22:10-34 “
- 1 Kings 8:19-40
- Jeroboam rejected the Lord and followed idols. Therefore, God rejected him as King
The prince who violates the law and disobeys God is a tyrant. “Any ruler who commands anything contrary to the law of God thereby forfeits his realm.”
“Rebellion is refusal to obey God. To obey the ruler when he commands what is against God’s law is thus truly rebellion.” It is lawful and required for people to rebel against a King that disobeys God
- 2 Samuel 21:1-9 -> King Saul broke his agreement with the Gibeonites and put many of them to death. Because the people tolerated the offense of their King, they also failed and were punished. As punishment, there was a famine in the land until David reconciled the offense
- 2 Samuel 24:10-25 -> King David did not put his trust in the Lord when he decided to run a census and number his people. Since the people cooperated with David’s actions in doing such an obvious offense, and since they failed to resist the King’s command, God punished all the Israelites
- 2 Kings 11 -> Jehoiada anoints a new king, Joash, because the Queen Athaliah was an unjust and evil Queen. Not only did Jehoiada overthrow Athaliah, he also killed her and removed the idols of Baal. Jehoiada’s actions are praised because he resisted the tyranny, not the kingdom
- 2 Chronicles 21:10 -> Libnah, a town of the Levites, removed itself from the authority of King Jehoram because “he had forsaken the Lord God of this fathers”
January 7, 2023
Le Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, sono un pamphlet politico del secolo XVI, di attribuzione incerta. L’autore di questo trattato, Stefano Giunio Bruto, non esiste. Si tratta di uno pseudonimo, dietro al quale si pensa si celino due persone: il teologo e politico Philippe Duplessy-Mornay e il politico Hubert Languet, entrambi ugonotti.
L’argomento è la tirannia e il diritto naturale, di un popolo, di liberarsi dalla tirannide, anche con mezzi violenti, quando un re non persegue più il bene della collettività, ma solo il suo bene personale; cosa che spesso si traduce in scelte inique, che impoveriscono la popolazione o creano animosità, persecuzioni e guerra civile.
E’, questo, uno scritto molto importante, poiché anticamente si credeva che il re avesse potere decisionale assoluto e direttamente derivato da dio. Era, infatti, considerato quasi un sacrilegio ribellarsi ad un re (o comunque i monarchi avevano interesse a diffondere questa interpretazione).
Così, l’autore (o gli autori) di questo pamphlet, spinti dal contesto storico e sociale in cui vivevano (quello delle guerre religiose in Francia, tra cattolici e ugonotti), mettono mano alla Bibbia e ai vari episodi in essa raccontati (soprattutto relativamente all’istituzione della monarchia di Saul – e poi Davide – in Israele), per affermare che la sovranità di uno stato appartiene al popolo e che un re non solo a dio, ma anche al popolo deve rendere conto.
In più, è qui affermato che il popolo tutto ha, in realtà, più potere del solo re e che principi stranieri hanno il diritto, se non il dovere di intervenire, per fermare l’opera di un governo iniquo.
Affermazioni del genere, nel 1579, anno di pubblicazione delle Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, erano in parte inedite e in parte incendiarie. Sicuramente erano avveniristiche. E molto hanno influenzato i pensatori e i teorici dello stato e i filosofi politici successivi (da Locke ai padri costituenti americani).
Ovviamente, nascendo in ambito di guerre di religione (questo pamphlet segue il terribile massacro della notte di San Bartolomeo, dove vennero trucidati migliaia di ugonotti) una parte delle argomentazioni verte anche sul rispetto delle norme divine/bibliche e del patto tra il re e dio, e il popolo e dio. Ma non poteva che essere così, dato il tempo e il contesto in cui questo libro è stato scritto.
Trovo, tuttavia, universali le sue riflessioni sul secondo aspetto su cui si sofferma – e che forse oggi ci riguarda più da vicino – ovvero il rapporto tra “sudditi”/popolo e re/governo.
E devo, inoltre, riconoscere agli autori che, nonostante anch'essi siano probabilmente scampati alla strage di San Bartolomeo, o ad altre persecuzioni, il loro richiamo a deporre, con la forza, i tiranni è non privo di una certa moderazione. Infatti, cosa che non mi aspettavo, secondo gli autori un comune cittadino non avrebbe alcun potere di attentare alla vita o al regno del tiranno. Sono i magistrati e le figure politiche di rango via via inferiore ad avere l’autorità di chiamare alle armi i cittadini; o – al massimo – la liberazione può avvenire su iniziativa o aiuto di un principe straniero.
Com’è vero che grandi tragedie o ci peggiorano o ci migliorano! Considerando come la Francia (ma anche il resto d’Europa) sia stata colpita dalla piaga delle guerre di religione, trovo che questo pamphlet, all’epoca, fu una prima pietra verso la costruzione di un pensiero democratico e moderno e moderato. Uno sforzo necessario del pensiero umano, che ha poi portato alla creazione di altre opere fondamentali, che hanno modellato lo stato europeo/americano/occidentale.
E’ un peccato che l’abbia dovuto leggere in inglese ed in e-book. Non per la lingua, che fortunatamente conosco bene, ma perché sarebbe bello che tali opere, anche se superate, obsolete, di nicchia - chiamatele come volete - siano sempre reperibili. Dopotutto sono state un tassello nella storia del nostro modo di pensare e nell'evoluzione della nostra civiltà.
L’argomento è la tirannia e il diritto naturale, di un popolo, di liberarsi dalla tirannide, anche con mezzi violenti, quando un re non persegue più il bene della collettività, ma solo il suo bene personale; cosa che spesso si traduce in scelte inique, che impoveriscono la popolazione o creano animosità, persecuzioni e guerra civile.
E’, questo, uno scritto molto importante, poiché anticamente si credeva che il re avesse potere decisionale assoluto e direttamente derivato da dio. Era, infatti, considerato quasi un sacrilegio ribellarsi ad un re (o comunque i monarchi avevano interesse a diffondere questa interpretazione).
Così, l’autore (o gli autori) di questo pamphlet, spinti dal contesto storico e sociale in cui vivevano (quello delle guerre religiose in Francia, tra cattolici e ugonotti), mettono mano alla Bibbia e ai vari episodi in essa raccontati (soprattutto relativamente all’istituzione della monarchia di Saul – e poi Davide – in Israele), per affermare che la sovranità di uno stato appartiene al popolo e che un re non solo a dio, ma anche al popolo deve rendere conto.
In più, è qui affermato che il popolo tutto ha, in realtà, più potere del solo re e che principi stranieri hanno il diritto, se non il dovere di intervenire, per fermare l’opera di un governo iniquo.
Affermazioni del genere, nel 1579, anno di pubblicazione delle Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, erano in parte inedite e in parte incendiarie. Sicuramente erano avveniristiche. E molto hanno influenzato i pensatori e i teorici dello stato e i filosofi politici successivi (da Locke ai padri costituenti americani).
Ovviamente, nascendo in ambito di guerre di religione (questo pamphlet segue il terribile massacro della notte di San Bartolomeo, dove vennero trucidati migliaia di ugonotti) una parte delle argomentazioni verte anche sul rispetto delle norme divine/bibliche e del patto tra il re e dio, e il popolo e dio. Ma non poteva che essere così, dato il tempo e il contesto in cui questo libro è stato scritto.
Trovo, tuttavia, universali le sue riflessioni sul secondo aspetto su cui si sofferma – e che forse oggi ci riguarda più da vicino – ovvero il rapporto tra “sudditi”/popolo e re/governo.
E devo, inoltre, riconoscere agli autori che, nonostante anch'essi siano probabilmente scampati alla strage di San Bartolomeo, o ad altre persecuzioni, il loro richiamo a deporre, con la forza, i tiranni è non privo di una certa moderazione. Infatti, cosa che non mi aspettavo, secondo gli autori un comune cittadino non avrebbe alcun potere di attentare alla vita o al regno del tiranno. Sono i magistrati e le figure politiche di rango via via inferiore ad avere l’autorità di chiamare alle armi i cittadini; o – al massimo – la liberazione può avvenire su iniziativa o aiuto di un principe straniero.
Com’è vero che grandi tragedie o ci peggiorano o ci migliorano! Considerando come la Francia (ma anche il resto d’Europa) sia stata colpita dalla piaga delle guerre di religione, trovo che questo pamphlet, all’epoca, fu una prima pietra verso la costruzione di un pensiero democratico e moderno e moderato. Uno sforzo necessario del pensiero umano, che ha poi portato alla creazione di altre opere fondamentali, che hanno modellato lo stato europeo/americano/occidentale.
E’ un peccato che l’abbia dovuto leggere in inglese ed in e-book. Non per la lingua, che fortunatamente conosco bene, ma perché sarebbe bello che tali opere, anche se superate, obsolete, di nicchia - chiamatele come volete - siano sempre reperibili. Dopotutto sono state un tassello nella storia del nostro modo di pensare e nell'evoluzione della nostra civiltà.
September 30, 2020
"But for tyrants, let them say and think what they please; that shall be the least of my care, for it is not to them but against them that I write. For kings I believe that they will readily consent to that which is propounded, for by true proportion of reason they ought as much to hate tyrants and wicked governors as shepherds hate wolves; physicians, poisoners; true prophets, false teachers; for it must necessarily occur that reason infuses into good kings as much hatred against tyrants as nature imprints in dogs against wolves, for as the one lives by rapine and spoil, so the other is born or bred to redress and prevent all such outrages. It may be the flatterers of tyrants will cast a supercilious aspect on these lines, but if they were not past all grace they would rather blush for shame. I very well know that the friends and faithful servants of kings will not only approve and lovingly entertain this discourse, but also with their best abilities defend the contents thereof. Accordingly as the reader shall find himself moved either with content or dislike in the reading hereof, let him know that by that he shall plainly discover either the affection or hatred that he bears to tyrants."
In our nation when 95% of the population were professed Christians, abortion was federally legalized. This can only happen when these very Christians are desensitized to this horror and/or silent and indifferent to the world around them. The founders structured our government so the people themselves would be a check against wicked tyrannical leaders. How have the people been silent?
This book is a cannon-blast wakeup call to the Church, especially to men. What does God have to say to the proper duties of Kings, magistrates/officers, and civilians? I strongly encourage all to pick this up and read it slowly.
In our nation when 95% of the population were professed Christians, abortion was federally legalized. This can only happen when these very Christians are desensitized to this horror and/or silent and indifferent to the world around them. The founders structured our government so the people themselves would be a check against wicked tyrannical leaders. How have the people been silent?
This book is a cannon-blast wakeup call to the Church, especially to men. What does God have to say to the proper duties of Kings, magistrates/officers, and civilians? I strongly encourage all to pick this up and read it slowly.
March 2, 2021
This will put hair on your chest. It is a convincing defense of Protestant Resistance theory on the lawfulness of resisting tyranny. The really fascinating thing is many of the sentiments regarding liberty, the relationship between the Church and state, and the rule of law that many have come to associate with America are found here. This, obviously, puts a wrench in the common assumption that Christians who make such a big deal about religious Liberty are being more American than Christian. The author of this text isn’t influenced by enlightenment liberalism; he lived under a monarchical order and had little to base his ideas on besides the Scriptures and history up to that point. He reasoned theologically to reach many of the same ideas America would eventually be built upon. What does this mean? It means that we should give pause to the assumption that the Western mentality has infected Christianity. Rather than assuming Westernism has ruined Christianity, it may be safer to conclude that many of the values of the West came FROM Christianity. “It is not you that supports the root but the root that supports you,” sort of thing.
(This is not universal, obviously. There are plenty of ways in which American decadence and radical individualism and love of mammon have obscured Biblical Christianity. I’m only pointing out how untrue it is say something like, “There is no such thing as a nation or culture that is ‘more Christian’ than any other.” A sentiment that seems to grow with the increase of cultural relativism)
(This is not universal, obviously. There are plenty of ways in which American decadence and radical individualism and love of mammon have obscured Biblical Christianity. I’m only pointing out how untrue it is say something like, “There is no such thing as a nation or culture that is ‘more Christian’ than any other.” A sentiment that seems to grow with the increase of cultural relativism)
December 16, 2021
For a serious thinking Christian, it is plain that we have a biblical duty to submit to governmental authority, but it is also clear that this duty does not extend to all the possible commands the government could pronounce. So where is the line in the sand? Few questions on the topic of religious liberty are more important to consider in today’s political climate. This treatise, with the benefit of a vastly different historical and political context, is a top notch resource for exploring this question biblically. The location of your “line in the sand” may differ from the author’s or from mine when all is said and done, but the relentlessly biblical approach to examining it will benefit all readers. I thought the first two questions (out of the four addressed) were the most strongly supported from scripture and the most clearly answered, but all are worth reading and grappling with. Particularly helpful are the explorations of the doctrine of the lesser magistrate and of the distinction between a king and a tyrant. Let’s conclude by affirming with the author the ideal of civil government: “All kings are the vassals of the King of kings, invested into their office by the sword, which is the cognizance of their royal authority, to the end that with the sword they maintain the law of God, defend the good, and punish the evil” (Canon Press 2020, p. 9).
May 17, 2024
Difficult read given its age but important and relevant book that considers when can you resist your governors. The book considers 4 questions-
1 Are we bound to obey leaders if they command what is against the law of God
2. Is it lawful to resist leaders who infringe Gods law or ruin His church. By whom, how and how far is it lawful?
3 Is it lawful to resist the leader who oppresses or ruins a public state and how the resistance is extended.
4 May neighbor leaders aid the subjects of other leaders, if persecuted for true religion.
Brutus wrote during the French persecution of the Huegonots, so wrote from their very personal experience and thought.
Hard read but great and thoughtful reasoning .
1 Are we bound to obey leaders if they command what is against the law of God
2. Is it lawful to resist leaders who infringe Gods law or ruin His church. By whom, how and how far is it lawful?
3 Is it lawful to resist the leader who oppresses or ruins a public state and how the resistance is extended.
4 May neighbor leaders aid the subjects of other leaders, if persecuted for true religion.
Brutus wrote during the French persecution of the Huegonots, so wrote from their very personal experience and thought.
Hard read but great and thoughtful reasoning .
February 8, 2021
Not all I was hoping it would be. But more determinative to the three-star rating
was the fact that of all the many prooftexts, none by itself and not the whole lot together
were able to persuade me that it's the people's duty to resist a tyrant, however much
God may hate the tyranny and eradicate it by diverse means. This distinction,
between what God may decree against a tyrant in His providence and what a Christian
citizen is obligated to do, was never satisfactorily laid out, in my opinion.
This is not to say no case for Christian resistance can be made from Scripture; it's just that I never discovered Brutus making it with Scripture behind him.
was the fact that of all the many prooftexts, none by itself and not the whole lot together
were able to persuade me that it's the people's duty to resist a tyrant, however much
God may hate the tyranny and eradicate it by diverse means. This distinction,
between what God may decree against a tyrant in His providence and what a Christian
citizen is obligated to do, was never satisfactorily laid out, in my opinion.
This is not to say no case for Christian resistance can be made from Scripture; it's just that I never discovered Brutus making it with Scripture behind him.
December 14, 2021
I skimmed this book, only reading particular sections. I'd like to come back at some point and read it cover to cover. In my opinion, Reformation theology lacked a fully thought out system of civil government, and it seemed to me that this book dealt with certain aspects of that in more detail than many other writers did. There's certainly some valuable ideas in here, and I'd encourage Christians to read this in the times that we are in to prepare for the present and future.
Though I'll withhold a verdict until reading it more closely, my impression was that I found too many examples from history used and too few scriptures.
Though I'll withhold a verdict until reading it more closely, my impression was that I found too many examples from history used and too few scriptures.
October 14, 2022
Extremely well thought out and insightful book. It is clear that the authors had an extensive knowledge of scripture and classic authors and thought.
However, I had to reduce the rating by one star just because of the difficulty of reading the book. I am proud of getting through it but it was definitely a challenge. Not only the archaic choices of wording but the way they would write on and on without clear division between subjects increases the difficulty of following for a youngish modern reader such as myself. I would find a modernized version much more appealing and if anyone would be interested in hiring me to do this project then send me a message ;)
However, I had to reduce the rating by one star just because of the difficulty of reading the book. I am proud of getting through it but it was definitely a challenge. Not only the archaic choices of wording but the way they would write on and on without clear division between subjects increases the difficulty of following for a youngish modern reader such as myself. I would find a modernized version much more appealing and if anyone would be interested in hiring me to do this project then send me a message ;)
March 5, 2021
The only time it would be better to read this book than RIGHT NOW is to have read it before now. The text is a few hundred years old, but the *biblical* principles for recognizing tyrants and then how to resist them as *Christians* are evergreen and ever needed. If the church, and her shepherds, and her members, understood this book perhaps our republic wouldn't be crashing so hard.
Living in 2021 requires wisdom, and courage, and this is a book that is protein for building those kinds of muscles.
Living in 2021 requires wisdom, and courage, and this is a book that is protein for building those kinds of muscles.
March 16, 2023
An extremely important book, penned by an anonymous Huguenot author of the late 16th century, which lays out a detailed biblical case for principled resistance to tyrants. While this text was a very influential one for the American Founding Fathers, the author’s detailed analysis of medieval political structures and constitutions far pre-dating his own time, in conjunction with the biblical exposition, is very illuminating and firmly establishes that the relevant principles have very deep roots indeed – certainly they were not concocted whole cloth on this side of the pond in 1776!
February 6, 2025
This is a good book about political theology or theological politics. Brutus looks at the Old Testament example of kingship and how it was instituted by God through the popular consent of the people of Israel. Also, the King had God’s law and the civil law as restraints on his power. Any King who breaks divine law or civil law may justly be resisted by the lesser magistrates. This book helped lay the foundation for the lawful revolution in the United States. Excellent read! Bravo for Canon Press making it available.
April 24, 2024
If you ever thought to yourself "man I wish someone would write a book that mixed 'bondage of the will' and 'the federalist papers' into a book that proves something I already take for granted", well then do I have a book for you! This bad boy is 216 glorious pages of explaining that it's mostly okay to kill tyrants. Mostly.
10/10 would read again if I ever found myself trying to explain to a young, time-traveling, George Washington that it was indeed okay to fight ol' Georgie-boy!
10/10 would read again if I ever found myself trying to explain to a young, time-traveling, George Washington that it was indeed okay to fight ol' Georgie-boy!
April 24, 2025
The only reason I dont give this 5 stars is due to the highly repetitive nature of the Chapter "Whether the King be Usufructor of the Kingdom." in that chapter, the author (or authors) reiterate everything they had explained already while providing further evidence to support their beliefs. Other than that, this book provides the correct framework to correctly understand a Christian's obligations to their government. Highly recommend especially for anyone trying to understand Romans 13.
January 2, 2021
This as a must read. If you could have one mantle’s-worth of books, this needs to have a place among them.
Coming from the 1500s, this book has lost none of its potency and relevancy. If anything, the current news makes it that much more of a necessary read.
So read it. Toss it around with your peers and some whiskey.
Coming from the 1500s, this book has lost none of its potency and relevancy. If anything, the current news makes it that much more of a necessary read.
So read it. Toss it around with your peers and some whiskey.
March 1, 2021
This book is a must-read for every student seeking to graduate high school. Every citizen and seeker of public office ought to regularly refresh their minds with the Scriptural principles of government as stated in this work. I recommend this to everyone questioning the role and nature of government and how it ought to work.
August 11, 2023
Excellent tract and treatment of the doctrine of the lesser magistrates. It was difficult for me to read as I am not accustomed to reading the classics but well worth the effort. I one day hope that my arguments be so saturated in scripture and history rather than mere persuasion as the authors arguments were.
February 13, 2021
This is one of the most difficult to understand books I have ever read. I really struggled to follow the flow of the arguments in this book. I have read other books from this time: I think it is the translation. I hope the translation is updated someday - it seems like a good book.
April 8, 2024
Very well written. Cool to see Federalism defended as a Christian doctrine before Federalism was named and used by the Americans. Very good defense for acts like the American Revolution as well. Thank you lesser magistrate George Washington.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews