The Historic and Biblical Concept of Interposition (Matthew Trewhella)

Luther and the Lesser Magistrate

Shall Alabama Submit to Federal Jurisdictions? - Judge Roy Moore vs. Russell Moore (Generations Radio)

"Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Committee on Ethics presses state officials to submit to the higher magistrate in every case, including same-sex marriage.   Meanwhile, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appears more motivated than the other Moore, to provide exemptions for state officials from onerous federal court mandates.  

"But what will happen should the U.S. Supreme Court force the states to provide marriage licenses to a man and his pig?   Kevin Swanson introduces the doctrine of interposition, from historic Christian writings on this edition of the program."

Roy Moore Defends Marriage Against Judicial Tyranny (Theonomy Applied)

Sons of Liberty Media reported on January 28 the following: 

Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court has taken a stand against judicial tyranny on the matter of natural marriage. And strikingly and importantly, he has called on the governor of Alabama to do the same.

Last Friday, another judicial activist, U.S. District Judge Callie Granade, overturned Alabama’s marriage amendment, which was passed in 2006 by a staggering 81% of voters. (The judge has stayed her own ruling for two weeks.)Justice Moore says he will not recognize the federal court ruling, and he is calling on Gov. Robert Bentley to do the same. And the beauty of it is that he is doing it all on solid constitutional grounds.

Read more here

His letter to the Governor is available here. 

Here is much of the letter:

The recent ruling of Judge Callie Granade of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction over the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment ...

As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage. The people of this state have specifically recognized in our Constitution that marriage is “[a] sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman”; that “[a] marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state”; and that “[a] union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex … shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state.” ...

The Supreme Court of Alabama has likewise described marriage as “a divine institution,” imposing upon the parties “higher moral and religious obligations than those imposed by any mere human institution or government.” ... 

The laws of this state have always recognized the Biblical admonition stated by our Lord:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:6-9).

Even the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the basic foundation of marriage and family upon which our Country rests is “the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885) (quoted in United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 401 (1908)).

Today the destruction of that institution is upon us by federal courts using specious pretexts based on the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution. As of this date, 44 federal courts have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states. If we are to preserve that “reverent morality which is our source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement,” then we must act to oppose such tyranny! … I ask you to continue to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity. Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority. 

About Roy Moore

  

Hitting Back (Geoffrey Botkin on Violence in Complex Moral Situations)

"When it’s a sin to turn the other cheek, how must Christians apply violence in complex moral situations?

"One of the most Complicated topics facing Christians in three generations. It is more relevant than most churches will admit. What leaders or teachers or churches or pastors can be found in our generation who can explain this issue Scripturally and authoritatively?"


 

The Doctrine of Non-Partiality as a Basis for the Interposition of Lesser Magistrates

It was the doctrine of non-partiality that brought the tyrant
King Charles I to trial, and effectively beheaded the notion
of the divine right of kings - which held kings to be
above the law.

by Steve C. Halbrook

The notion of the divine right of kings holds that higher magistrates are above the law and therefore cannot be made to answer for crimes against the people—even by the interposition of lesser magistrates. 

While this has been advocated by many in history and justified by Scripture itself, this view is demolished when confronted with a foundational principle of civil government: the doctrine of non-partiality. Consider the following verses:

Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. (Deuteronomy 16:18, 19)

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. (Deuteronomy 1:17)

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. (Leviticus 19:15)

"Nor can I think that God's law, or
his deputy the judges, are to accept
the persons of the great, because
they are great."
-- Samuel Rutherford

According to these texts, civil rulers are not to show favoritism to anyone—"the great" included. And, naturally, the great includes the highest ranking civil rulers. As Samuel Rutherford, author of the enormously influential book Lex Rex ("the law is king"), writes:

Nor can I think that God's law, or his deputy the judges, are to accept the persons of the great, because they are great; (Deut. i. 17; 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7;) and we say, we cannot distinguish where the law distinguisheth not. The Lord speaketh to under judges, (Lev. xix. 15,) "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty," or of the prince ... [1]

Indeed, since the legal system is not to show favoritism to the highest rulers in the land, then there must be a means of holding them accountable when they break the law. Since it is the job of rulers to hold lawbreakers accountable, then the logical choice for holding rulers who break the law accountable is other rulers. Thus it seems that when a higher magistrate commits a crime (e. g., murder or seduction to idolatry), then lower magistrates should seek to bring him to justice. 

The means for doing so would ideally be peaceful (e.g., a warrant and arrest). But if the higher magistrate refuses to cooperate, then lesser magistrates can use force—just as they would do to a normal citizen. 

If lower magistrates refuse to hold accountable higher magistrates who commit criminal acts, then they would be guilty of favoritism, and thus violate Scripture. They would be a respecter of the great. For how can they try regular citizens for the very crimes that they overlook in higher magistrates? How could they try regular citizens for murder, but not a king or a president for genocide?

As the English Bishop John Ponet, a strong opponent of "the divine right of kings," writes:

But I beseech you, what needs to make one general law to punish by one name a great many offenses, when the law is all ready made for the punishment of everyone of them particularly. If a prince robs and spoils his subjects, it is theft, and as a thief ought to be punished. If he kills and murders them contrary or without the laws of his country, it is murder, and a murderer he ought to be punished. If he commits adultery, he is an adulterer and ought to be punished with the same pains that others be. If he violently ravish men's wives, daughters, or maidens, the laws that are made against ravishers, ought to be executed on him. If he goes about to betray his country, and to bring the people under a foreign power: he is a traitor, and as a traitor he ought to suffer. And those that be judges in commonwealths, ought (upon complaint) to summon and cite them to answer to their crimes, and so to proceed, as they do with others. For the prophet speaking unto those that have the rule in commonwealths, and that be judges and other ministers of justice, he says: "Minister justice to the poor and orphaned, pronounce the miserable and poor to be innocent, if he be innocent: take the poor, and deliver the needy out of the hands of the wicked". When you sit to judge, you shall not have respect of persons, whether they be rich or poor, great or small: fear no man, for you execute the judgment of God, says the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Moses. Judge not after the outward appearance of man, but judge rightly, says Christ.[2]

Note how Ponet assumes the doctrine of non-partiality, as he states, "When you sit to judge, you shall not have respect of persons, whether they be rich or poor, great or small." 

What seems to confirm our thesis that the doctrine of non-partiality warrants civil punishments for criminal acts by even higher magistrates is 2 Chronicles 15:12, 13:

And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

According to this text, even the "great" (e. g., higher magistrates) are subject to capital punishment for criminal behavior. To "not seek the Lord" at least means to violate Scripture's civil law against apostate idolatry per Deuteronomy 17:2, 3. In any case, if higher magistrates must be held accountable for this criminal act, then surely they must be held accountable for all other acts that Scripture considers criminal.

John Knox reminds Mary, Queen of Scots of her duty.

John Knox, the great interposition theologian, saw the implications of 2 Chronicles 15:12, 13. He draws on this passage in an appeal to Scotland's lesser magistrates, noting their duty to restrain and punish all seducers to idolatry—even if it was the king himself. The basis for this is the doctrine of non-partiality:

And this is the first, which I would your honours should note, of the former words: to wit, that no person is exempted from punishment, if he can be manifestly convicted to have provoked or led the people to idolatry. And this is most evidently declared in that solemn oath and covenant which Asa made with the people to serve God, and to maintain his religion, adding this penalty to the transgressors of it: to wit, "that whosoever should not seek the Lord God of Israel should be killed: were he great, or were he small, were it man, or were it woman" (2 Chron. 15:13). And of this oath was the Lord pleased; he was found of them, and gave them rest on every part, because they sought him with their whole heart, and did swear to punish the offenders, according to the precept of his law, without respect of persons. And this is it which, I say, I would your honours should note for the first, that no idolater can be exempted from punishment by God's law.[3]

The doctrine of non-partiality—which provides a theological basis for the interposition of lesser magistrates and the "rule of law"—can also be argued from Exodus 12:49:

One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. (See also Leviticus 24:22 and Numbers 15:15, 16.)

If there is to be only one law for everyone in the nation, then higher magistrates are not exempt from laws governing the rest of the people. Otherwise, there would be two laws—one for the people, and one for higher magistrates—which contradicts this text.

Charles I faces justice

The doctrine of non-partiality applied: the English Parliament brings the tyrant King Charles I to justice

During his reign as king of England, Charles I abused his power. Parliament interposed, which resulted in the English Civil War. After the Parliamentarian army defeated the king, Charles I was tried and convicted for commiting a multitude of crimes under the cloak of authority. As part of his sentence reads,

the said Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England, and therein trusted with a limited power to govern by, and according to the law of the land, and not otherwise; and by his trust, oath, and office, being obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people, and for the preservation of their rights and liberties; yet, nevertheless, out of a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people, and to take away and make void the foundations thereof, and of all redress and remedy of misgovernment, which by the fundamental constitutions of this kingdom were reserved on the people's behalf in the right and power of frequent and successive Parliaments, or national meetings in Council; he, the said Charles Stuart, for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same end hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and people therein represented, as with the circumstances of time and place is in the said charge more particularly set forth; and that he hath thereby caused and procured many thousands of the free people of this nation to be slain ... [4]

"[J]ustice is no respecter of
persons." -- Solicitor-General
John Bradshawe (above) to
Charles I

It was the doctrine of non-partiality that brought the tyrant Charles I to justice and effectively beheaded the notion of the divine right of kings. 

This is partly seen in an account of a conversation between Charles I and Major Thomas Harrison while the king was in custody before his trial. The king abruptly left the conversation after Harrison said 

"that the law was equally obliging to great and small, and that justice had no respect to persons; or words to that purpose."[5] 

The king, in short, was informed that he would be tried for his alleged crimes just like everybody else. In the eyes of the law, "the great" would be shown no favoritism.

The doctrine of non-partiality is also evoked during the trial itself. When Charles I stubbornly and arrogantly refuses to acknowledge the court's authority, the Solicitor-General John Bradshawe, while demanding a plea to the charges, reminds him that justice is not partial:

Sir, in plain terms—for justice is no respecter of persons—you are to give your positive and final answer, in plain English, whether you are guilty or not guilty of these treasons laid to your charge.[6]

Charles I was ultimately convicted and beheaded for being "a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of this nation."[7] This was such a victory for the doctrine of non-partiality that it set a precedent for trying later tyrants. As the internationally renowned human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson notes,

[T]he King's trial may now be seen as the earliest precedent for trials of modern heads of state—political and military leaders like Pinochet and Milošević, who attempt (just like Charles I) to plead sovereign immunity when arraigned for killing their own people.[8]

When lesser magistrates consistently apply the doctrine of non-partiality in particular and biblical civil law in general, they can become a terror not only to evildoing citizens, but to evildoing tyrants as well. The key is the fear of God: when lesser magistrates tremble before the Almighty, they are equipped to cause the criminal higher magistrate to tremble before the law:

And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. (2 Chronicles 19:6-7)

Notes ____________________________

[1] Samuel Rutheford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982), 131.

[2] John Ponet, A Short Treatise on Political Power, and of the true obedience which subjects our to kings and other civil governors, with an Exhortation to all true and natural English men, ed., Patrick S. Poole (1556). Retrieved February 15, 2014 from http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ponet/polpower.htm

[3] "The Appellation of John Knox," in John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland (Edinburgh: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co. and A. Fullarton and Co., 1831), 391. 

[4] "The Sentence of the High Court of Justice upon the King," January 27, 1648-9. Rushworth, vii. 1418. See Great Civil War, iv. 312. Retrieved February 15, 2014 from http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur084.htm

[5] Roger Lockyer, ed., The Trial of Charles I (London: Folio Society, 1971), 61. Cited in Geoffrey Robertson, The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold (NY: Pantheon Books, 2005), 130. [6] Cited in Robertson, The Tyrannicide Brief, 170.

[7] "The Sentence of the High Court of Justice upon the King."
[8] Robertson, The Tyrannicide Brief, 3.

Does Saul's Anointing Oppose Interposition? Historical Perspectives

"If the [particular] obedience due to Saul proceeded from
God's institution, it can extend to none but those who are so
peculiarly instituted and anointed by his command, and
the hand of his prophet, which will be of little advantage
to the kings that can give no testimony of
such an institution or unction."
-- Algernon Sidney

By David's refusal to stretch out his hand against Saul on the basis of Saul being the Lord's anointed, some infer that resistance against tyrants is never appropriate. In this view, all rulers are considered anointed, and are therefore untouchable.

Historically, however, many have opposed this view, and several have put forward arguments to explain why Saul's anointing does not, biblically speaking, imply that lesser magistrates and/or the people cannot interpose to prevent tyranny. 

Here are several of those arguments:

Samuel Eaton (1596?-1665) (English Congregational divine):

Objection: David would not stretch out his hand against Saul upon this ground, for that he was his Master the King of Israel, and the Lord’s Anointed, though he was then in actual, violent, and unjust pursuit of his life, 1 Sam. 24.5, &c 26.9.&c.

Reply. David at that time was but a private man, and Saul was King unquestioned by the Heads of Israel, and Sauls persecution was but of one private mans life, it appears not that he was a Tyrant unto the Commonwealth. However it is evident that he was given of God immediately, without the interposition of the people, and therefore it might be, that he must be taken away by God, though he had been a Tyrant. But what is this to Princes in these times, that have no such immediate Cals [calls?] to Kingdoms?[1]

John Milton (1608-1674) (Statesman, poet, polemicist):

And if David refus'd to lift his hand against the Lords anointed, the matter between them was not tyranny, but private enmity, and David as a private person had bin his own revenger, not so much the peoples; but when any tyrant at this day can shew to be the Lords anointed, the onely mention'd reason why David withheld his hand, he may then but not till then presume on the same privilege.[2]

[Note: some believe that Milton was theologically unorthodox. We don't know either way, but we must note that quoting him here is not necessarily an endorsement of his overall theology.]

Algernon Sidney (1623-1683) (English statesman, political theorist, military officer):

[I]f the obedience due to Saul proceeded from God's institution, it can extend to none but those who are so peculiarly instituted and anointed by his command, and the hand of his prophet, which will be of little advantage to the kings that can give no testimony of such an institution or unction; and an indisputable right will remain to every nation of abrogating the kingdoms which are instituted by and for themselves. But as David did resist the authority of Saul and Ishbosheth, without assuming the power of a king, tho' designed by God, and anointed by the prophet, till he was made king of Judah by that tribe; or arrogating to himself a power over the other tribes till he was made king by them, and had entered into a covenant with them; 'tis much more certain that the persons and authority of ill kings, who have no title to the privileges due to Saul by virtue of his institution, may be justly resisted; which is as much as is necessary to my purpose.

Object. But David's heart smote him when he had cut off the skirt of Saul's garment, and he would not suffer Abishai to kill him. This might be of some force, if it were pretended that every man was obliged to kill an ill king, whensoever he could do it, which I think no man ever did say; and no man having ever affirmed it, no more can be concluded than is confessed by all. But how is it possible that a man of a generous spirit, like to David, could see a great and valiant king, chosen from amongst all the tribes of Israel, anointed by the command of God and the hand of the prophet, famous for victories obtained against the enemies of Israel, and a wonderful deliverance thereby purchased to that people, cast at his feet to receive life or death from the hand of one whom he had so furiously persecuted, and from whom he least deserved, and could least expect mercy, without extraordinary commotion of mind, most especially when Abishai, who saw all that he did, and thereby ought best to have known his thoughts, expressed so great a readiness to kill him? This could not but make him reflect upon the instability of all that seemed to be most glorious in men, and shew him that if Saul, who had been named even among the prophets, and assisted in an extraordinary manner to accomplish such great things, was so abandoned and given over to fury, misery and shame; he that seemed to be most firmly established ought to take' care lest he should fall.

Surely these things are neither to be thought strange in relation to Saul, who was God's anointed, nor communicable to such as are not: some may suppose he was king by virtue of God's unction (tho' if that were true, he had never been chosen and made king by the people) but it were madness to think he became God's anointed by being king: for if that were so, the same right and title would belong to every king, even to those who by his command were accursed and destroyed by his servants Moses, Joshua and Samuel. The same men, at the same time, and in the same sense, would be both his anointed and accursed, loved and detested by him; and the most sacred privileges made to extend to the worst of his enemies.

Again; the war made by David was not upon the account of being king, as anointed by Samuel, but upon the common natural right of defending himself against the violence and fury of a wicked man; he trusted to the promise, "that he should be king," but knew that as yet he was not so: and when Saul found he had spared his life, he said, "I now know well that thou shalt surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall surely be established in thy hand;" not that it was already. Nay David himself was so far from taking upon him to be king, till the tribe of Judah had chosen him, that he often acknowledged Saul to be his lord. When Baanah and Rechab brought the head of Ishbosheth to him, he commanded them to be slain; "because they had killed a righteous man upon his bed, in his own house;" which he could not have said, if Ishbosheth had unjustly detained from him the ten tribes, and that he had a right to reign over them before they had chosen him. The word of God did not make him king, but only foretold that he should be king; and by such ways as he pleased prepared the hearts of the people to set him up; and till the time designed by God for that work was accomplished, he pretended to no other authority, than what the six hundred men who first followed him, afterwards the tribe of Judah, and at last all the rest of the people, conferred upon him.

I in no way defend Absalom's revolt; he was wicked, and acted wickedly; but after his death no man was ever blamed or questioned for siding with him: and Amasa who commanded his army, is represented in scripture as a good man, even David saying, that Joab by slaying Abner and Amasa, had killed "two men who were better than himself"; which could not have been, unless the people had a right of looking into matters of government, and of redressing abuses: tho' being deceived by Absalom, they so far erred, as to prefer him, who was in all respects wicked, before the man, who, except in the matter of Uriah, is said to be after God's own heart. This right was acknowledged by David himself, when he commanded Hushai to say to Absalom, "I will be thy servant O king ;" and by Hushai in the following chapter, "Nay, but whom the Lord and his people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide;" which could have no sense in it, unless the people had a right of choosing, and that the choice in which they generally concurred, was esteemed to be from God.

But if Saul who was made king by the whole people, and anointed by the command of God, might be lawfully resisted when he departed from the law of his institution; it cannot be doubted that any other for the like reason may be resisted. If David, tho' designed by God to be king, and anointed by the hand of the prophet, was not king till the people had chosen him, and he had made a covenant with them; it will, if I mistake not, be hard to find a man who can claim a right which is not originally from them. And if the people of Israel could erect and pull down, institute, abrogate, or transfer to other persons or families, kingdoms more firmly established than any we know, the same right cannot be denied to other nations.[3]

From James Tyrrell's Bibliotheca Politica (1727) (includes arguments for and against resistance in the form of a dialogue):
[see around pages 145-147 and 177 for opposing arguments]

I am so far from differing with you in what you have said concerning this Example of David towards Saul, tho' his Enemy, that I think it ought to be a Pattern to every single private Man, tho' never so great, in a Kingdom or Commonwealth, how to comport himself towards the Supreme Powers, if he himself alone be unjustly persecuted by them either in his Life or Estate, that is, to fly if he can, tho' with the Loss of all his Estate, rather than resist. Tho' there are some Circumstances in this Story of David, that make it evident that he did not think a defensive War against those Cut-throats that Saul might send to kill him unlawful; and so much Dr. Fearn himself, in his first Discourse call'd Resolving of Conscience, &c. against Resistance of the Higher Powers, acknowledges: For David, when he fled from Saul, made himself Captain of four hundred Men, which Number soon increased to six hundred, and still every day grew more by Additions. Now why should he entertain those Men, but to defend himself against the Forces of Saul? that is, to make a defensive War, whenever he was assaulted by them.[4] ...

[A]nd to what purpose should he make use of so many as 400 or 600 Men, unless it were to defend himself against those Men that Saul might send against him, since half a score or twenty Persons had been enough to have served for Spies? And if he had thought himself obliged only to run away, three or four Servants had been enough in conscience to have waited on him in any neighbouring Country : But that David thought it no Sin to defend himself from the Violence of those whom Saul should send to kill him, is plain from what he says to Abiathar, upon his Flight unto him after the Death of his Father: Abide thou with me; fear not: for he that seeketh my Life, seeketh thy Life, but with me thou shalt be in safeguard. And if David had not meant by these Words to have defended Abiathar's as well as his own Life, if assaulted, and without a possibility of escaping, it had been very cold comfort for David to have only assur'd him, that he should be in safeguard with him till the first Assault that should be made upon them, but that then he should shift for himself; for as for his own part, he would, rather permit his Throat to be cut by the King's Officers or Soldiers than resist them.

And therefore, tho' I own that it was not lawful for him to stretch out his Hand against the Lord's Anointed; since I do not allow any private Subject to kill even Tyrants, unless in a State of actual War or Battle, wherein they are Aggressors, nor then neither, if it can possibly be avoided: Yet do I not find it at all unlawful for David, or any other private Man, to defend his own Life against such Assassinates as his Prince may send against him; so it may be done without a Civil War, or endangering the Peace of the Commonwealth. And so much you your self, tho' coldly, seem to yield, when you say, that the very Presence of such a number of Men about David, without any hostile Act, preserved him from being seiz'd on by some officious Persons, who otherwise might have delivered him into Saul's Hands: For I cannot think that David would have been at the trouble of keeping so many Men only for show, and a Terror to those officious Persons you mention, without resisting of them, if there had been occasion.

And tho' you tell me, that his being anointed by Samuel to be King after Saul's Death, was the first step to the Kingdom, to have such a Retinue of valiant Men about him; which made his Advancement to the Throne so much the easier, and discouraged any Opposition which might have been made against him, and that we see it proved so in the Event; and therefore have reason to believe, that it was thus ordered by God to that very End, I must take the liberty so far to differ from you.

For first, I desire to know by what Authority David could list 6 or 700 Men in Arms in Saul's Territories? and whether, according to your Doctrine, they were not Rebels for joining themselves with one who was declared a Traitor by the King? And tho' you fay it was thus ordered by God, I grant indeed it was; yet doth it not appear that it was done by any Divine Revelation to Nathan or Abiathar, but only by the ordinary Course of his Providence, like other things in the World: And therefore it is no fair way of arguing for you to affirm, that whatever David did in the matter of his own Defense, contrary to your Principles, he must needs do it by express Order from God, of which the Scripture is wholly silent: Much less doth it appear from the Story, that these Men whom David kept with him, were only to facilitate his attaining the Kingdom, as you  affirm; since the Scripture mentions no such thing, only that after Saul's Death he went up by God's Command to Hebron, with the Men that were with him and thither the Men of Judah came, and there they anointed David King over the House of Judah. But 'tis no where mentioned, that these Men were of any use to David for the obtaining of the Crown, since the Tribe of Judah would have made him King, tho' these Men had not been with him: For what could 600 or 1000 Men do against so vast a Multitude as the whole Tribe of Judah? And therefore it is evident, that these Forces were for no other End than his own defense.[5] ...

Nor are your Instances of Saul or Pilate, to the Question in hand: I grant Saul was God's Anointed, and could not have been lawfully resisted by David, notwithstanding his murdering of Abimelech, and the rest of the Priests: And Pilate might have his Authority from above, notwithstanding his Abuse of it: Yet doth it not therefore follow, that if either the one or the other had declared themselves sworn Enemies to the whole Nation of the Jews; and that instead of governing and protecting them, they had gone about utterly to destroy them, I think they had then ceased to be the Ordinance of God, and their Divine Commission had been at an end. To conclude: As for the Reason you give, why St. Paul might call the Roman Emperors by the Name of Powers, I shall not deny it. But whether by the Word [we omit the Greek word that follows], the Apostle means Persons or Powers, is much at one ; for if he means the former, he only urges Obedience to them as they are the means of the Happiness and Preservation of the People, as appears by the third and fourth Verses of the Chapter you now quote, where the main Reason St. Paul gives for our Obedience, is, That Rulers are not a Terror to good Works, but to the evil; and that he, (viz., the Supreme Power) is a Minister to us for our Good: And indeed, it had been a very odd way of enforcing our Obedience, for him to have said the quite contrary, that this Power was to be obeyed, because he was a Terror to good Works, and a Plague to all good Men, and a Minister to us of all manner of Mischief and Misery.[6]

Notes
________________________________

[1] "A Reply to an Answer Pretending to Refute Some Positions Which Tended to Make the Oath of Allegiance Void, and not Obliging," in Samuel Eaton, The Oath of Allegiance and the National Covenant Proved to be Non-Obliging; or, Three Several Papers on that Subject (London: Peter Cole, 1650), 13.

[2] John Milton, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, ed. William Talbot Allison (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1911), 23.

[3] Algernon Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government: Volume II (Edinburgh: G. Hamilton and J. Balfour, 1750), 19-23.

[4] James Tyrrell, Bibliotheca Politica: or, an Enquiry into the Ancient Constitution of the English Government, With Respect to the just Extent of the Regal Power, and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject (London: J. Darby, 1727), 145

[5] Ibid., 146, 147.
[6] Ibid., 177.

The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates Defined

Jan Zizka: Warrior, Hussite Reformer, Theonomist (Theonomy Applied)

Jan Žižka (c. 1360–1424) was a Hussite (i. e., a follower of the reformer John Hus) and Czech general who defended his land from Roman Catholic armies during the Hussite Wars. R. G. Grant writes the following about Žižka:

When Catholic forces set out to crush Czech Hussite religious reformers in the 1420s, the Hussite resistance was led by Jan Žižka, a veteran of many wars. With a mainly peasant army at his disposal, Žižka invented superbly effective tactics for countering mounted knights. He deployed cannon, and soldiers armed with crossbows and primitive handguns, on crudely armored wagons. These could be used offensively, charging the enemy like tanks, or chained together in an impregnable defensive circle, known as a Wagenburg. Inspired by their faith—the troops entered battle singing hymns—Žižka's army repeatedly won battles, most notably at Kutana Horá. Even after losing his other eye in 1421, Žižka fought on to further victories, dying of the plague after his final win at Malesov.[1]

Jan Žižka

In praise of Žižka, Protestant historian J. A. Wylie writes:

Our space does not permit us to narrate in detail the many battles, in all of which Ziska bore himself so gallantly. He was one of the most remarkable generals that ever led an army. Cochleus, who bore him no good-will, says, taking all things into account, his blindness, the peasants he had to transform into soldiers, and the odds he had to meet, Ziska was the greatest general that ever lived.[2] 

On Žižka's death, Wylie adds, 

Bohemia laid her great warrior in the tomb with a sorrow more universal and profound than that with which she had ever buried any of her kings. Ziska had made the little country great; he had filled Europe with the renown of its arms; he had combated for the faith which was now that of a majority of the Bohemian nation, and by his hand God had humbled the haughtiness of that power which had sought to trample their convictions and consciences into the dust.[3]

According to Wylie, the Hussite struggle for liberty (which Žižka played a major role in) helped to soften Rome's resolve during the eventual Protestant reformation:

The fulmination of the Pope, and the invasion of their country by the armies of the emperor, left [the Hussites] no alternative but arms. But, having reluctantly unsheathed the sword, the Hussites used it to such good purpose that their enemies long remembered the lesson that had been taught them. Their struggle paved the way for the quiet entrance of the Reformation upon the stage of the sixteenth century. Had not the Hussites fought and bled, the men of that era would have had a harder struggle before they could have launched their great movement. Charles V. long stood with his hand upon his sword before he found courage to draw it, remembering the terrible recoil of the Hussite war on those who had commenced it.[4] 

Jan Žižka had a high view of God's law, which he promoted in the civil realm and to his armies. He also had a high view of God's providence in battle, which no doubt gave him confidence when vastly outnumbered by Roman Catholic armies. Both of these strengths are the focus of this article.

It must be said in passing that we are not sure how far Žižka and the Hussites in general of his time took their reformation theologically. In some respects, they did see doctrinal improvements over Roman Catholicism. How orthodox the Hussites ultimately became, however, we do not know. It is true that the Hussites had doctrinal differences among themselves, with some being more orthodox than others on particular matters.[5] But, at the very least, Žižka was used by God as an instrument of justice and as a force to humble Rome.

"[H]aving reluctantly unsheathed the sword, the Hussites used it to such
good purpose that their enemies long remembered the lesson that had been
taught them. Their struggle paved the way for the quiet entrance of the
Reformation upon the stage of the sixteenth century." -- J. A. Wylie

The Fourth Article of Prague and Civil Punishments against God's Law

After becoming the head of the militia in Prague, Jan Žižka insisted that he would defend the city from the Roman Catholics only if the city wrote a common Hussite statement of faith. The result was the "The Four Articles of Prague" in 1420[6]. The articles, unfortunately, retained some Roman Catholic doctrine.

Not long after the promulgation of the Four Articles, Žižka was one of the driving forces behind altering the fourth article to emphasize civil punishments for offenses against the Law of God.[7] (The article, unfortunately, uses the Roman Catholic term "mortal sins.") It reads:

That all mortal sins and especially those that are committed publicly, as well as other disorders offending against the Law of God shall be properly and sensibly prohibited and punished in each estate by those who have the authority to do so; and that evil and slanderous rumours about this country be cleansed away, thus insuring the general welfare of the Bohemian Kingdom and Nation.[8]

The Statutes and Military Ordinances of Žižka's New Brotherhood

In 1423 Jan Žižka issued the "Statutes and Military Ordinance of Žižka’s New Brotherhood." This military code—which strengthened the organization of the Hussite armies—focused on both strict military discipline and religious matters.[9] Victor Verney refers to this as "the first formal code of military conduct and discipline," with laws that applied to those of all social classes—"until then an unheard-of concept."[10]

Here are some of the ordinances:

Ordinance number 9:
Violent acts to be punished according to God's law/applies to all men impartially 

9. If someone should strike, wound, maim, or slay someone else, retribution shall be wrought upon him according to God's law, as the Lord God permits, no one being excepted and without regard for his person.[11]

Ordinance number 11: 
Manifest sinners to be banished or punished according to God's law

11. Also we do not want to suffer among us faithless men, disobedient ones, liars, thieves, gamblers, robbers, plunderers, drunkards, blasphemers, lechers, adulterers, whores, adulteresses, or any other manifest sinners, men or women; all these will we banish and chase away, or punish them with the help of the Holy Trinity according to the Law of God.[12]

Ordinance number 12: 
Punishments to fit the crime according to God's law/applies to all men impartially

12. Also Brother Žižka, and other lords, captains, knights, squires, townsmen, craftsmen, and peasants named above, and all their communities, with the help of God and of the Commonwealth, will punish all such crimes by flogging, banishment, clubbing, decapitation, hanging, drowning, burning, and by all other retributions which fit the crime according to God's Law, excepting no one from whichever rank and sex.[13]

Per Deuteronomy 20:14, Zizka's
consistent policy after defeating the
enemy  was to spare women
and children

Siege Warfare, Terms of Peace, and Quarter

In 1420, after the persecution of Hussites in the Bohemian town of Prachatice, Žižka led Hussite armies to Prachatice to conquer the town. When Žižka arrived and the defenders shut the town gates, he offered to spare everyone and their belongings if they let his armies in.[14]

After the town rejected his offer, he said, "I confess in the name of God that if I conquer you I will not spare anyone." After conquering the town, however, Žižka did spare the women and children,[15] which was his consistent policy.[16]

Theology of War - "Keep your Lord in thine hearts. Fight for him and with him"

The battle hymn "Warriors of God" was the most popular Hussite song and "became symbolic of the movement itself."[17] It was Žižka's and the Hussite soldiers' theology of war—a theology that emphasizes trust in God, obedience to God, and God's sovereignty in the outcome of battle. The song also struck terror in the heart of the enemy.

This hymn functioned as a march chant — a steady, compelling reminder of what was expected of each soldier. It also served as a very effective mechanism for what we today call “psychological operations”: the Imperial enemy, often hearing the somber cadences of this song before the Hussites came into view, were frequently so unnerved by it that they turned and ran before the two sides even engaged! This song has been used as a theme by latter-day classical Czech composers such as Bedrich Smetana.[18]

"Warriors of God" (translation)

"Keep your Lord in thine hearts. Fight for
him and with him." - "Warriors of God,"
 battle hymn of Jan Zizka (above)
and his armies

Ye who are the warriors of God
And of His Law, 
Pray for God's help
And believe in Him 
So ye will with him always remain victorious.

Christ will reward thee for what thou lose,
He promises ye a hundred times more. 
Whoever gives his life for Him
Will gain life eternal.
Blessed everyone who stands by the truth
[editor's note: if in the fact the wording here intends to promote salvation by works, we do not endorse this aspect of the song]

This our Lord bids us not to fear
The destroyers of the flesh
If ye want to win the life
For the love of thy nearest.

Therefore archers and lancers 
Of knightly rank,
Pikesmen and flailsmen
Of the common people,
Do all keep in mind the generous Lord.

Never fear the enemies
Do not mind their great numbers,
Keep your Lord in thine hearts. Fight for him and with him
And do not ever retreat before thine enemies!

Long the Czechs have said
And have had a proverb, 
That under a good lord
There is good riding.

Ye all must remember the password
As it was given to ye.
Always obey thy captains.
Each shall help and protect the other.
Each shall look for and stay with his own battalion.

Ye baggage boys and grooms,
Keep it in mind
That ye forfeit not thy lives
By theft or robbery,
And let thyselves never be tempted by spoil.

And thus joyously shout:
'At them, hurray, at them!' 
Feel the pride of the weapons in thy hands, 
Attack with the cry: God is our Lord![19]

Notes
____________________________________

[1] R. G. Grant, Commanders: History's Greatest Military Leaders (New York, NY: DK Publishing, 2010), 105.
[2] J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism: Volume I (NY: Cassell Petter & Galpin, n. d.), 189.
[3] Ibid., 190.
[4] Ibid., 189.
[5] Žižka himself proved to be on the wrong side of a very important doctrine when he recommended executing Hussites who refused to view the Lord's Supper as having a divine presence; as they told their persecutors, "Not we but you are in error, seduced by the erring clergy into kneeling before a created thing—the bread of the sacrament." They were eventually burned to death. Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, CA: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 431, 432.
[6] Craig D. Atwood, The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), 92.
[7] Martin Pjecha, "From Protecting God's Law to Spreading Faith and Vengeance: Human Agency and the Shift towards Offensive Warfare in the Hussite Discourse" (Thesis, Central European University History Department, 2012), 30, 31
[8] "The Four Articles of Prague," Victor Verney - Freelance Writer. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://victorverney.wordpress.com/literature/the-four-articles-of-prague/

[9] Stephen Turnbull, The Hussite Wars 1419-36 (United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2004), 19.
[10] "Warrior of God," Victor Verney - Freelance Writer. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://victorverney.wordpress.com/literature/

[11] "The Statutes and Military Ordinances of Žižka's New Brotherhood," Victor Verney - Freelance Writer. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://victorverney.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/militaryordinances2.gif

[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Historia Hussitica in Fontes rerum bohemicarum 5: 443-444. Cited in Thomas A. Fudge, The Crusade against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418-1437: Sources and documents for the Hussite Crusades (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2002), 94, 95.
[15] Historia Hussitica in Fontes rerum bohemicarum 5: 443-444. Cited in Fudge, The Crusade against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418-1437, 95.
[16] Fudge, The Crusade against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418-1437, 96n.

[17] Ibid., 66.
[18] "Warrior of God," Victor Verney - Freelance Writer. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://victorverney.wordpress.com/literature/

[19] "Hussite battle song: 'Warriors of God'," Victor Verney - Freelance Writer. Retrieved August 26, 2013, from http://victorverney.wordpress.com/literature/warriors-of-god/

Note about the Theonomy Applied Series: In quoting any particular law, we do not necessarily endorse every aspect of that law as biblical, whether it be the prohibition, sanction, court procedure, etc. Rather, we are merely showing the more or less attempt to apply biblical law in history, whether or not that application was fully biblical. Moreover, in quoting any particular law, we do not necessarily consider those who passed and/or enforced such a law as being fully orthodox in their Christian theology. Professing Christian rulers in history have ranged in their theology from being orthodox (that is, Reformed Protestants) to heretical (for example, Roman Catholics).