What do you think?
Rate this book
Lex Rex: The Law is King
“A man commanding unjustly and ruling tyrannically has in that no power from God.” When Lex, Rex was written, the Reformation in England and Scotland was in crisis. The English Civil War had just begun after Charles I tried to impose popish rituals on the church and asserted his divine right as king to overrule parliament. Against these grandiose claims the Scottish pastor Samuel Rutherford wrote a book and changed western political philosophy forever as it led to the thinking that enabled the American revolution. In his very learned work, Rutherford shows from Scripture, classical authors, and scholastic theologians that the king is not above the law; and that when the king violates it flagrantly, the people are right to resist him, even to the point of war. The title Lex Rex is Latin for “Law is King”. Divine right theorists had said that the King was the law, but Rutherford reverses this and shows that natural law is above the king, and thus there are times when citizens can and must obey God rather than man. "Rutherford was a practical and pastoral theologian who could soar to great heights of glorious consolation. . . But Rutherford was also a bare-knuckle brawler who was clearly able to hold his own in the theological bar fight that was the seventeenth century. You are now holding in your hands the evidence of that.” ~ Introduction by Douglas Wilson This book is published by Canon Press. At Canon Press, we’re gospel no matter who you are or what you do, you’re called to be increasing in Biblical faithfulness. That’s because Jesus’s death and resurrection changed All of Christ, for all of life, for all the world. As the wisest man said, “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works” (Eccl. 9:7). We believe reformation and revival start from faith in the Lord with joyful obedience to the Bible, and that is what makes everyday tasks significant and transforms culture. Because of these beliefs, we offer books on Christian living, encouragement, contentment, raising kids, healthy marriages, educational choices, classical education, homeschooling, politics, government, feminism, identity, manhood, womanhood, singleness, virtue, and so much more.
614 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1644
128 people are currently reading
734 people want to read
About the author
Samuel Rutherford
172 books78 followersSamuel Rutherford, Scottish minister and covenanter Rutherford was born about the year 1600 near Nisbet, Scotland. Little is known of his early life. In 1627 he earned a M.A. from Edinburgh College, where he was appointed Professor of Humanity. He became minister of the church in Anwoth in 1627. It was a rural parish, and the people were scattered in farms over the hills.
His first years in Anwoth, though, were touched with sadness. His wife was ill for a year and a month, before she died in their new home. Two children also died during this period.
In 1636 Rutherford published a book defending the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) against Armininism. This put him in conflict with the Church authorities, which were dominated by the English Episcopacy. He was called before the High Court, deprived of his ministerial office, and exiled to Aberdeen. This exile was a sore trial for the beloved pastor. He felt that being separated from his congregation was unbearable. However, because of his exile, we now have many of the letters he wrote to his flock, and so the evil of his banishment has been turned into a great blessing for the church worldwide.
In 1638 the struggles between Parliament and King in England, and Presbyterianism vs. Episcopacy in Scotland culminated in momentous events for Rutherford. In the confusion of the times, he simply slipped out of Aberdeen and returned to his beloved Anwoth. But it was not for long. The Kirk (Church of Scotland) held a General Assembly that year, restoring full Presbyterianism to the land. In addition, they appointed Rutherford a Professor of Theology of St. Andrews, although he negotiated to be allowed to preach at least once a week.
The Westminster Assembly began their famous meetings in 1643, and Rutherford was one of the five Scottish commissioners invited to attend the proceedings. Although the Scots were not allowed to vote, they had an influence far exceeding their number. Rutherford is thought to have been a major influence on the Shorter Catechism.
During this period in England, Rutherford wrote his best-known work, Lex Rex, or The Law, the King. This book argued for limited government, and limitations on the current idea of the Divine Right of Kings.
When the monarchy was restored in 1660, it was clear that the author of Lex Rex would could expect trouble. When the summons came in 1661, charging him with treason, and demanding his appearance on a certain day, Rutherford refused to go. From his deathbed, he answered, "I must answer my first summons; and before you."
His first years in Anwoth, though, were touched with sadness. His wife was ill for a year and a month, before she died in their new home. Two children also died during this period.
In 1636 Rutherford published a book defending the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) against Armininism. This put him in conflict with the Church authorities, which were dominated by the English Episcopacy. He was called before the High Court, deprived of his ministerial office, and exiled to Aberdeen. This exile was a sore trial for the beloved pastor. He felt that being separated from his congregation was unbearable. However, because of his exile, we now have many of the letters he wrote to his flock, and so the evil of his banishment has been turned into a great blessing for the church worldwide.
In 1638 the struggles between Parliament and King in England, and Presbyterianism vs. Episcopacy in Scotland culminated in momentous events for Rutherford. In the confusion of the times, he simply slipped out of Aberdeen and returned to his beloved Anwoth. But it was not for long. The Kirk (Church of Scotland) held a General Assembly that year, restoring full Presbyterianism to the land. In addition, they appointed Rutherford a Professor of Theology of St. Andrews, although he negotiated to be allowed to preach at least once a week.
The Westminster Assembly began their famous meetings in 1643, and Rutherford was one of the five Scottish commissioners invited to attend the proceedings. Although the Scots were not allowed to vote, they had an influence far exceeding their number. Rutherford is thought to have been a major influence on the Shorter Catechism.
During this period in England, Rutherford wrote his best-known work, Lex Rex, or The Law, the King. This book argued for limited government, and limitations on the current idea of the Divine Right of Kings.
When the monarchy was restored in 1660, it was clear that the author of Lex Rex would could expect trouble. When the summons came in 1661, charging him with treason, and demanding his appearance on a certain day, Rutherford refused to go. From his deathbed, he answered, "I must answer my first summons; and before you."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
March 4, 2022
This book is a beast! There are few such books that are so challenging and so worthwhile to read. Lex Rex is a foundational work in Reformed literature on the nature of the law and its relationship to the ruler of a nation.
This is not for the faint of heart as it is six-hundred pages of dense prose, latin quotations, references to and quotations from many of Rutherford's contemporaries and their works with whom few modern readers will have any familiarity or acquaintance. Yet there is so much good in the work.
I wish some brave soul would revise this book for the modern reader, include study notes, and update the language. Or perhaps summarize the most important and relevant questions for a lay audience.
The book itself is largely a treatise on the nature of law for a nation whose God is the LORD. The king is a servant of the law, and more importantly the LORD, and therefore is beholden to it, rather than over it. The ruler is an office-holder, and the man (or woman) can be distinct from the office. So when the ruler steps out of the authority that God has entrusted to the ruler, citizens must obey not the person, but the law, while honoring the office.
This is not for the faint of heart as it is six-hundred pages of dense prose, latin quotations, references to and quotations from many of Rutherford's contemporaries and their works with whom few modern readers will have any familiarity or acquaintance. Yet there is so much good in the work.
I wish some brave soul would revise this book for the modern reader, include study notes, and update the language. Or perhaps summarize the most important and relevant questions for a lay audience.
The book itself is largely a treatise on the nature of law for a nation whose God is the LORD. The king is a servant of the law, and more importantly the LORD, and therefore is beholden to it, rather than over it. The ruler is an office-holder, and the man (or woman) can be distinct from the office. So when the ruler steps out of the authority that God has entrusted to the ruler, citizens must obey not the person, but the law, while honoring the office.
February 25, 2016
This was not an easy book to read (it took me over a year to read it), but I'm glad I did. Rutherford's scholastic form of writing does take some getting used to. Rutherford wrote this book in response to the popish excommunicated Arminian Anglican prelate, John Maxwell, and his book, "Sanro-Sancta Regum Majestas" or the sacred and royal prerogative of Christian kings. Rutherford wrote his book in the midst of the English Civil War and the Westminster Assembly (every member of the assembly was said to have Lex, Rex in hand; Rutherford was a Scottish commissioner to the assembly). Having historical context is very helpful in reading this book.
Rutherford does a fine job arguing for biblical, limited, and covenantal government in opposition to absolute monarchy (without resorting to the Enlightenment social contract theory that was to come with Locke and others). Some quotes:
"That which is the garland and proper flower of the King of kings, as he is absolute above his creatures, and not tied to any law, without himself, that regulateth his will, that must be given to no mortal man or king, except we would communicate that which is God's proper due to a sinful man, which must be idolatry." (p. 106, In other words, holding that a man (i.e. a king, ruler, or rulers) is above the law is idolatry because it attributes divinity to man.)
On balance of powers due to man's depravity:
"Power and absolute monarchy is tyranny; unmixed democracy is confusion; untempered aristocracy is factious dominion...all three thus contempered have their own sweet fruits through God's blessing, and their own diseases by accident, and through man's corruption; and neither reason nor Scripture shall warrant any one in its rigid purity without mixture." (p. 116)
On tyranny and resistance:
"Therefore an unjust king, as unjust, is not that genuine ordinance of God, appointed to remove injustice, but accidental to a king. So we may resist the injustice of the king, and not resist the king. 8. If, then, any cast off the nature of a king, and become habitually a tyrant, in so far he is not from God, nor any ordinance which God doth own." (p. 117) "A tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the catholic good of the subjects and the state, and subverteth law." (p. 119)
On the people's calling of the king to public office:
"If the Lord's immediate designation of David, and his anointing by the divine authority of Samuel, had been that which alone, without the election of the people, made David formally king of Israel, then there were two kings in Israel at one time; for Samuel anointed David, and so he was formally king upon the ground laid by royalists, that the king hath no royal power from the people; and David, after he himself was anointed by Samuel, divers times calleth Saul the Lord's anointed, and that by the inspiration of God's Spirit, as we and royalists do both agree. Now two lawful supreme monarchs in one kingdom I conceive to be most repugnant to God's truth and sound reason; for they are as repugnant as two most highs or as two infinities...but certainly God's dispensation in this warranteth us to say, no man can be formally a lawful king without the suffrages of the people: for Saul, after Samuel from the Lord anointed him, remained a private man, and no king, till the people made him king, and elected him; and David, anointed by that same divine authority, remained formally a subject, and not a king, till all Israel made him king at Hebron; and Solomon, though by God designed and ordained to be king, yet was never king until the people made him so, ( 1 Kings i.); therefore there floweth something from the power of the people, by which he who is no king now becometh a king formally, and by God's lawful call; whereas before the man was no king, but, as touching all royal power, a mere private man." (p. 9)
On hereditary versus elective monarchy:
"Obj. – Most of the best divines approve an hereditary monarch, rather than a monarch by election. Ans. – So do I in some cases. In respect of empire simply, it is not better; in respect of empire now, under man's fall in sin, I grant it to be better in some respects...there is less danger to accept of a prince at hand, than to seek one afar off. In a kingdom to be constituted, election is better; in a constituted kingdom, birth seemeth less evil. In respect of liberty, election is more convenient; in respect of safety and peace, birth is safer and the nearest way to the well." (p. 46)
Rutherford does a fine job arguing for biblical, limited, and covenantal government in opposition to absolute monarchy (without resorting to the Enlightenment social contract theory that was to come with Locke and others). Some quotes:
"That which is the garland and proper flower of the King of kings, as he is absolute above his creatures, and not tied to any law, without himself, that regulateth his will, that must be given to no mortal man or king, except we would communicate that which is God's proper due to a sinful man, which must be idolatry." (p. 106, In other words, holding that a man (i.e. a king, ruler, or rulers) is above the law is idolatry because it attributes divinity to man.)
On balance of powers due to man's depravity:
"Power and absolute monarchy is tyranny; unmixed democracy is confusion; untempered aristocracy is factious dominion...all three thus contempered have their own sweet fruits through God's blessing, and their own diseases by accident, and through man's corruption; and neither reason nor Scripture shall warrant any one in its rigid purity without mixture." (p. 116)
On tyranny and resistance:
"Therefore an unjust king, as unjust, is not that genuine ordinance of God, appointed to remove injustice, but accidental to a king. So we may resist the injustice of the king, and not resist the king. 8. If, then, any cast off the nature of a king, and become habitually a tyrant, in so far he is not from God, nor any ordinance which God doth own." (p. 117) "A tyrant is he who habitually sinneth against the catholic good of the subjects and the state, and subverteth law." (p. 119)
On the people's calling of the king to public office:
"If the Lord's immediate designation of David, and his anointing by the divine authority of Samuel, had been that which alone, without the election of the people, made David formally king of Israel, then there were two kings in Israel at one time; for Samuel anointed David, and so he was formally king upon the ground laid by royalists, that the king hath no royal power from the people; and David, after he himself was anointed by Samuel, divers times calleth Saul the Lord's anointed, and that by the inspiration of God's Spirit, as we and royalists do both agree. Now two lawful supreme monarchs in one kingdom I conceive to be most repugnant to God's truth and sound reason; for they are as repugnant as two most highs or as two infinities...but certainly God's dispensation in this warranteth us to say, no man can be formally a lawful king without the suffrages of the people: for Saul, after Samuel from the Lord anointed him, remained a private man, and no king, till the people made him king, and elected him; and David, anointed by that same divine authority, remained formally a subject, and not a king, till all Israel made him king at Hebron; and Solomon, though by God designed and ordained to be king, yet was never king until the people made him so, ( 1 Kings i.); therefore there floweth something from the power of the people, by which he who is no king now becometh a king formally, and by God's lawful call; whereas before the man was no king, but, as touching all royal power, a mere private man." (p. 9)
On hereditary versus elective monarchy:
"Obj. – Most of the best divines approve an hereditary monarch, rather than a monarch by election. Ans. – So do I in some cases. In respect of empire simply, it is not better; in respect of empire now, under man's fall in sin, I grant it to be better in some respects...there is less danger to accept of a prince at hand, than to seek one afar off. In a kingdom to be constituted, election is better; in a constituted kingdom, birth seemeth less evil. In respect of liberty, election is more convenient; in respect of safety and peace, birth is safer and the nearest way to the well." (p. 46)
December 1, 2016
This is Samuel Rutherford's response to the prelate Maxwell who advocated absolute obedience to monarchs in all respects. This book is a point by point refutation (and reads like it). Rutherford's Key argument: "I reduce all that I am to speak of the power of kings, to the author or efficient, -the matter or subject, - the form or power, - the end and fruit of their government, - and to some cases of resistance" (Rutherford 1).
We can say it another way: We can reorder the scholastic causes (formal, efficient, material, final) to forms of limitation: what is the purpose of govt? Who or what brings govt into existence? Who or what constitutes govt? If these distinctions aren't kept in mind, Rutherford's argument doesn't make sense. In fact, constitutional govt wouldn't make sense, either.
Rutherford explains government is natural in its root but voluntary in its mode. Further, The power of creating a man a king is from the people (6). Can the people cede all of their liberty to the king? No, for the people do not have absolute power over themselves. You cannot cede what you do not have (81). The king is above the people by eminence of derived authority as watchman, but he is inferior to them in fountain-power, as the effect to the cause (115). This is Rutherford’s key, and in my opinion, strongest, argument in the book. God’s intention per civil govt is “external peace, and quiet life, and godliness of his church and people, and that all judges, according to their places, be nurse-fathers to the church (Isa. 40.23)” (105).
Can we resist the government? Well, individually no. As a member of an estate and body politic, yes. Resistance and patient suffering are not contraries when considered as virtues (153ff). If resistance can fall under the virtue of self-preservation, then it is not an evil. Were the entire Parliament and city of London to lay down their arms and go meekly to their deaths at the hand of Irish rebels? In lighter situations, such as taxes and tribute, we may not use acts of re-offending. Did Paul meekly submit to the king of Damascus or did he engage in self-preservation and escape (159)?
The book is somewhat difficult to read because Rutherford is engaging in a point-by-point refutation of Maxwell, so it isn't always clear which point is under discussion.
We can say it another way: We can reorder the scholastic causes (formal, efficient, material, final) to forms of limitation: what is the purpose of govt? Who or what brings govt into existence? Who or what constitutes govt? If these distinctions aren't kept in mind, Rutherford's argument doesn't make sense. In fact, constitutional govt wouldn't make sense, either.
Rutherford explains government is natural in its root but voluntary in its mode. Further, The power of creating a man a king is from the people (6). Can the people cede all of their liberty to the king? No, for the people do not have absolute power over themselves. You cannot cede what you do not have (81). The king is above the people by eminence of derived authority as watchman, but he is inferior to them in fountain-power, as the effect to the cause (115). This is Rutherford’s key, and in my opinion, strongest, argument in the book. God’s intention per civil govt is “external peace, and quiet life, and godliness of his church and people, and that all judges, according to their places, be nurse-fathers to the church (Isa. 40.23)” (105).
Can we resist the government? Well, individually no. As a member of an estate and body politic, yes. Resistance and patient suffering are not contraries when considered as virtues (153ff). If resistance can fall under the virtue of self-preservation, then it is not an evil. Were the entire Parliament and city of London to lay down their arms and go meekly to their deaths at the hand of Irish rebels? In lighter situations, such as taxes and tribute, we may not use acts of re-offending. Did Paul meekly submit to the king of Damascus or did he engage in self-preservation and escape (159)?
The book is somewhat difficult to read because Rutherford is engaging in a point-by-point refutation of Maxwell, so it isn't always clear which point is under discussion.
March 2, 2023
Good. At times Rutherford’s arguments are hard to distinguish between his own and his citation of his interlocutors. However, it’s a great work.
November 18, 2024
Samuel Rutherford was a smart man, which is clear from what he wrote. There is definitely some overlap between him and I; but, I am severely unimpressed by this book. On the face, it is an early work of the Scottish Enlightenment, which is dripping off of every page. There are times that brother Samuel misuses or outright twists scripture to fit what he thinks is true. He brings some core presuppositions, and everything dances his tune, at times unwillingly. His core thesis is this: the people are supreme. The government, no matter its form, is inferior to, and subservient to the will of the people. It's an irony that democracy and or republicanism is *SO* prevalent on protestant ideology, yet I cannot find it in the Bible.
September 21, 2020
Although it was a powerful and closely argued book and quite valuable for its time, it does become quite tedious. The basic premise, argued well from Scripture and from the light of nature, is that the King is not autonomous but has a responsibility to the people and is himself subject to the law.
July 3, 2017
Probably the hardest book I've read, and the small print in this edition didn't help with that. Rutherford's arguments are good, and he clearly he approaches the topic from scripture. He had me at times wanting to take up arms against Charles I myself!
Some of the arguments from P. P. Maxwell were good at times, and others pathetic, Rutherford dispatches them all, or at least he did in my mind.
Something I wasn't aware of when choosing this edition, though I am glad I did, was the inclusion of De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue concerning the rights of the crown in Scotland by George Buchanan, translated by Robert MacFarlan, A. M. This almost 50 page dialogue was amazing, and fits with Lex Rex really well. Unlike Rutherford's book, this was easy to read and mostly concise, the format of a dialog works really well. If I were to teach civics, history, or Christian view of government, I would make this latter book a required read.
Some of the arguments from P. P. Maxwell were good at times, and others pathetic, Rutherford dispatches them all, or at least he did in my mind.
Something I wasn't aware of when choosing this edition, though I am glad I did, was the inclusion of De Jure Regni Apud Scotos; A Dialogue concerning the rights of the crown in Scotland by George Buchanan, translated by Robert MacFarlan, A. M. This almost 50 page dialogue was amazing, and fits with Lex Rex really well. Unlike Rutherford's book, this was easy to read and mostly concise, the format of a dialog works really well. If I were to teach civics, history, or Christian view of government, I would make this latter book a required read.
September 25, 2022
In brief, Rutherford argues that the commonwealth or the kingdom is the fountain of royal power. That power is granted to a particular man to be king by way of covenant, and if that man exceed the terms of the covenant to act a tyrant, he is no longer acting as king and may lawfully be resisted. Rutherford relies upon Deuteronomy 17: God appoints the king, but he does not do it without the secondary cause of the people appointing him in some formal way.
Lex Rex is very thorough, but it is quite dense and repetitive–in part, because he is responding point by point to a repetitive work. Rutherford was clearly very knowledgeable not just about theology, but about law and history, which gives him a wide range of sources to draw on and consider.
A challenging read, though edifying for that same reason.
(The edition I read had quite a few typographical errors and mishaps. There was also a footnote about the term "two kingdoms" that I think was simply incorrect: in the context, it clearly referred to the kingdoms of England and Scotland, not any of the theological positions that go by that name!)
Lex Rex is very thorough, but it is quite dense and repetitive–in part, because he is responding point by point to a repetitive work. Rutherford was clearly very knowledgeable not just about theology, but about law and history, which gives him a wide range of sources to draw on and consider.
A challenging read, though edifying for that same reason.
(The edition I read had quite a few typographical errors and mishaps. There was also a footnote about the term "two kingdoms" that I think was simply incorrect: in the context, it clearly referred to the kingdoms of England and Scotland, not any of the theological positions that go by that name!)
April 26, 2015
Rutherford is nothing if not thorough. In many ways, the book is a tedious read to the modern reader, but to someone familiar with the political climate of his day, it is obvious why the book was controversial - and also why it was, is, and will continue to be politically influential. It combines clear, comprehensive thinking on every aspect of government from a distinctly Christian (and specifically a Presbyterian) viewpoint. As such is it a very beneficial read. Rutherford was no political hack. This man knew his opponents' views better than they did and was capable of outgunning them at every step of the way. Even though this doesn't read like Rutherford's other works, because it is not, strictly speaking, a work of divinity, his characteristic style and humble piety certainly shine through.
January 17, 2021
Powerful and well argued but challenging for a layman to follow. Rutherford assumes the reader is very familiar with the content he is discussing. However, he does expose bad arguments that are still around today and for that, I'm grateful to have read it. I'd recommend this for someone who has been taught civics and has a solid grasp of the Old Testament.
May 28, 2021
I enjoyed reading this much more than I thought that I would.
This was an incredibly influential book. And so you can see where it fits in history. But it also deals with topics we still struggle with today. Recent history revealed some shortcomings that Rutherford can help with today.
It’s not light reading, but it’s good.
This was an incredibly influential book. And so you can see where it fits in history. But it also deals with topics we still struggle with today. Recent history revealed some shortcomings that Rutherford can help with today.
It’s not light reading, but it’s good.
March 3, 2021
This is Samuel Rutherford’s response to the argument for the Divine Right of Kings. He discusses God’s role in installing governments, the people’s role, and how the King is not above the Law. And, from this he looks at how a people stands against unlawful authorities.
What makes this interesting is that even though it is very much a book written concerning a time period, his arguments are very applicable today because they are from the Scriptures. These arguments can be applied to Democracies whose representatives break the Law to push forward their agenda, for example.
This is not an easy read. I listened to an audio version of it and will soon read a hard copy, because I found the arguments within important for our day.
What makes this interesting is that even though it is very much a book written concerning a time period, his arguments are very applicable today because they are from the Scriptures. These arguments can be applied to Democracies whose representatives break the Law to push forward their agenda, for example.
This is not an easy read. I listened to an audio version of it and will soon read a hard copy, because I found the arguments within important for our day.
January 16, 2019
An important book in the history of political theology. But not for the faint of heart...
August 9, 2025
“Those who have power to make have power to unmake kings.”
Essential reading for those who want to understand Christian nationalism.
Essential reading for those who want to understand Christian nationalism.
November 23, 2014
Thanks to John Coffey, I understood and enjoyed this book much better the second time round (I first read it in 2002). It is an outstanding refutation of the idea of kings possessing absolute, lawless power.
March 18, 2015
Didn't really read it. I read the table of contents (44 questions) and looked at a few passages based on the relevant information from the table of contents. I would like to read the whole thing. I have a PDF.
June 25, 2011
I thought the book was an excellent representation of the correct application of the law both as it relates to the civil government as well as the application to ecclesiastical government.
October 31, 2016
This is simply a must read in the area of developing one's Biblical Worldview on issues such as law, government, politics, etc. Crucial text.
October 29, 2020
Ended up skimming a lot. Need an abridged version. 3.5 stars.
December 7, 2020
5 stars for its influence.
March 31, 2021
There were some things I didn't agree with and some things were hard to engage with because they were so specific to his time and audience, but overall very helpful.
December 18, 2022
A bit difficult to read (it was published in 1644) but fascinating nonetheless. If Locke is upstream from our Constitution, then Rutherford is upstream from Locke.
June 21, 2016
Excellent work! A must read!
Want to read
January 9, 2019Chris church Has it
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews