Customer Reviews

Brutus: Vindiciae, contra tyrannos: or, Concerning the Legitimate Power of a Prince over the People, and of the People over a Prince (Cambridge Texts in the History)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book was even more influencial than Thomas Payne's Common Sense, in molding the American mind and preparing it for the war for independence. Much of our Declaration of Independence reflects its wisdom and thought. Written by a French Huguenot to give Biblical and civil justification for fighting against a government that was illegally killing its own people during the relgious wars on France between 1540s-late 1700. The author assumes a Christian worldview that believes that all governing authorities have been established by God. It seeks to answer the question, "When is it justifible to reject the governing authority established by God without rebelling against Him"? A must reading for those who want to understand religious and political history of Europe, or want to better understand the Biblical justification sought by our own founding fathers in their fight for independence. A must read!

In the sixteenth century in France there was a major conflict between Roman Catholics and those of the Christian Faith known as the Huguenots. In France the Roman Catholics had the upper hand and used their power to persecute those who disagreed with the Pope and the Catholic Church's teaching. The author of this work plainly believed those in power followed the Pope's lead and this resulted in a tyrannical government. But the arguments made not specific to this time, but uses historical events recorded in the Old Testament, Roman history, European history and more current Middle East history. Remember this book was written in 1576. This work is a plea for a just government that protects the rights of the people who live within the borders of the country. The Author makes the argument that King of Israel, later Judah, and many European rulers are elected by the universi. The universi can be the population itself or government magistrates that represent the people. It is God that institutes government. The King is bound by his creator, therefore rules justly in obedience to God. Each individual is first bound to God then to the King and other magistrates who rule the country. The universi or the people as a whole are therefore also bound to the King as long as the King for the most part serves God. The Author cites several examples where Kings and lesser government officials take oaths to govern justly. As long as a King serves God, by definition this means he rules justly lesser government officials and the universi have no reason not to serve the King and in other ways be in compliance to his rule.

Concerning the legitimate power of a prince over the people and the people over a prince. Vindiciae, Contra Tyrannos - When do the people have a right to be in disagreement with government rule and take up action against their ruler. The author develops his argument through the answering four questions. The first question is whether subjects be bound or ought to obey princes if they command anything against the law of God? Two quick points: God rules by his own authority, the king rules through the sufferance of another. God has his jurisdiction; the king is administering of God's inheritance. The people or subjects are part of that inheritance. God and king have a covenant. God and the universi have a covenant. King and universi have a covenant. Lesser Government officials have a covenant with God. They also have one with the unversi and last the King. All have the priority to first seek out God's will.

Second Question, Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who is breaking the law of God and devastating God's church: by whom, how and by what extent? God had Israel take an oath to serve God when they took occupation of Canaan. This promise is an obligation to worship the One true God and to be obedient to God as a people not just as individuals {what the author calls the universi}. The promise is not in conflict with government rules as long as the King is faithful to God. God throughout the Bible holds the individual accountable for disobeying God even when government law forces the individual to disobey God. God holds the population as a whole liable for their disobedience when they comply with a Kings rule to be disobedient to God. Lesser Government officials have an obligation to seek out Gods will. When it is God's Will to lead the people against the King.

Third Question: Whether, and to what extent, it may be lawful to resist a prince who is oppressing or ruining the commonwealth; also by whom, how, and by what right it be allowed? A king is a tyrant when he commands his subjects to disobey God. A king is also a servant of the people. That is he is to use government resources properly, protect the rights of his subjects, protect his subjects against foreign invasion and crime within its borders. Kings are to rule by law. The author argues lesser government officials who represent the universi make laws. To rule outside the law makes a king a tyrant, an abuser of his power. What the king is allowed to use for government purposes and what he is allowed to consume as an individual? What belongs to the king and what belongs to the kingdom? What does the King own and what is under his stewardship to serve the universi? The universi is mandated to obey a just ruler and to rebel under proper leadership a tyrant.

Fourth Question: Whether neighboring princes may be right or ought, to render assistance to subjects of other prince who are being persecuted on account of pure religion or oppressed by manifest oppression. Another way to phrase the question is it ever right for a ruler of one country to start a war on another country because the ruler of the other country is a tyrant. The author of this book argues yes. Historic examples are given from the Old Testament, using the nation of Israel as an example on how each tribe was to aid each other. Also how Judah destroyed the high places in Israel even when part of Assyria. The Author even uses the crusades as example of wars fighting for Christian liberty. Religious freedom was not purely an internal affair to the author.