Samuel Rutherford and the riot at St Giles'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
I have begun re-reading Lex, Rex this Sabbath, and came across the below comment in the preface. He seems to be responding to John Maxwell's claim that Presbyterianism necessarily leads to lawless acts of violence, such as the riot at St Giles' in 1637; to which Rutherford replies:

36. The killing of the monstrous and prodigious wicked cardinal in the Castle of St Andrews, and the violence done to the prelates, who against all law of God and man, obtruded a mass service upon their own private motion, in Edinburgh anno 1637, can conclude nothing against presbyterial government except our doctrine commend these acts as lawful.

Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex; or, the law and the prince (1644; Edinburgh, 1843), xxiii.

Is Rutherford saying that the Scottish Presbyterian clergy did not approve of the riot as lawful behaviour or is this reading too much into the above extract?
 
Is Rutherford saying that the Scottish Presbyterian clergy did not approve of the riot as lawful behaviour or is this reading too much into the above extract?

The extract itself only goes as far as saying that there is nothing in Presbyterian doctrine to commend the action. If I remember correctly the Prelates tried to paint the proceedings as a Presbyterian scheme but there was no evidence for it. The Presbyterian ministers generally disliked all disorder, so it is safe to say they did not approve of the behaviour even though they would have agreed with the feeling of disgust which gave rise to it.
 
So, it would be fair to say that Rutherford is basically accusing Maxwell of employing a red-herring in order to unduly blacken Presbyterianism?
 
It has been a while since I looked at the issues behind the book, but I think it is safe to say Maxwell sought to blacken Presbyterianism. He had an active and influential hand in the Laudian movement. It probably goes without saying that Rutherford regarded any attempt to blacken Presbyterianism as "undue," but he was also very clear on the need to distinguish Presbyterianism from what a Presbyterian might happen to do. This quotation seems to expose a guilt-by-association type argument on Maxwell's part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top