Rule of Law

The rule of law is absolutely essential for any nation's government to treat its citizens in a just manner. If the laws in a nation are arbitrary and do not apply uniformly to all people, including government leaders, the laws will then be used to abuse and steal property from the people by their own government leaders. Therefore, for any nation to establish a government just legal system in which the liberties of all individuals will be respected, everyone must be subject equally before the laws of the land.

In addition to the equality of all people before the law, the laws must be subject to the laws of Christianity for them to be just. This is the higher law to which all human laws must be subject. This was the principle by which the Nazis were tried for their murder of the Jews. Even though the Supreme Court of Germany had declared that Jews were an inferior race and did not have human rights like the Aryan Germans, they were held to a higher moral standard. The same principle was applied to the Supreme Court in the United States which declared that black people were not human but property. It took a civil war to settle that issue because they broke the law of God that teaches all people are equal before the laws of God and subject to them. This includes the laws which the judges determine are valid.

If laws were not subject to the unchanging moral standard of God's law, tyrants in government could use the law to abuse and steal from the people. Rodney Stark, in his book "The Triumph of Reason" describes how the Roman Empire stole from the people through excessive taxation in order to uphold an ever-growing bureaucracy. This killed the incentive for people to work since the profits from hard working individuals would be stolen by the government through excessive taxation and redistributed to the friends of the Caesar. The bureaucracy of the Empire became so top-heavy that the taxation to keep it going led to the degeneration of the economy. The same thing happened to the Soviet Union. The economy fell apart since there was no incentive for the people to work. If they worked hard to gain a profit, the government would claim it for itself.

Property rights of the people must be protected by the law of the land from government leaders. If the property rights of the people are not established, politicians will promise to give the people the profits of others through wealth redistribution. The end-result will be the loss of individual property and the loss of the incentive to work. As the economy disintegrates, the government will become more authoritarian and try to force the people into slavery to sustain the tyrannical government. This is the repeated history of empires down throughout world history. The following article elaborates the importance of law in the rise of Western Civilization and liberty.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Christian foundations of the rule of law in theWest: a legacy of liberty and resistance against tyranny

by AugustoZimmermann

According to thetradition of the rule of law in the West, to be under law presupposes theexistence of certain laws serving as an effective check on arbitrary power. Therule of law is therefore far more than the mere existence of positive laws, asit also requires the state to act in accordance with principles of a ‘higherlaw’. The search for such ‘higher law’ implies, however, a moral discussion onwhat laws ought to be. If so, the rule of law becomes an impracticable and evenundesirable achievement for societies not subject to certain patterns ofcultural and religious behavior. On the other hand, any radical change in suchpatterns can certainly produce undesirable consequences for the realization ofthe rule of law.


The Bible has beenhistorically recognized as the most important book for the development of boththe rule of law and democratic institutions in the Western world. However, wehave seen over these last decades a deep erosion of individual rights, with thegrowth of state power over the life and liberty of individuals.

If the future wewant for ourselves and our future generations is one of freedom under law, notabsolute subjection to the arbitrary will of human authorities, we will have torestore the biblical foundations for the rule of law in the Western world. Assuch, the rule of law talks about the protection of the individual by God-givenliberties, rather than by an all-powerful, law-giving government endowed bygod-like powers over the civil society.

Christianityand the discovery of the individual

The modern roots ofour individual rights and freedoms in the Western world are found inChristianity. The recognition by law of the intrinsic value of each human beingdid not exist in ancient times. Among the Romans, law protected socialinstitutions such as the patriarchal family but it did not safeguard the basicrights of the individual, such as personal security, freedom of conscience, ofspeech, of assembly, of association, and so forth. For them, the individual wasof value ‘only if he was a part of the political fabric and able to contributeto its uses as though it were the end of his being to aggrandize the state’.1According to Benjamin Constant, a great French political philosopher, it iswrong to believe that people enjoyed individual rights prior to Christianity.2In fact, as Fustel de Coulanges put it, the ancients had not even the idea ofwhat it means.3

In 390, BishopAmbrose, who was located in Milan, forced Emperor Theodosius to repent of hisvindictive massacre of seven thousand people. The fact indicates that under theinfluence of Christianity, nobody, not even the Roman emperor, would be abovethe law. And in the thirteenth century, Franciscan nominalists were the firstto elaborate legal theories of God-given rights, as individual rights derivedfrom a natural order sustained by God’s immutable laws of ‘right reason’. Formedieval thinkers, not even the king himself could violate certain rights ofthe subject, because the idea of law was attached to the Bible-based concept ofChristian justice.

Christianity,the rule of law, and individual liberty

Behind every legal order thereis always a god, be it God Himself or those who have control over the statemachinery.

The notion that lawand liberty are inseparable is another legacy of Christianity. Accordingly,God’s revealed will is regarded as the ‘higher law’, and therefore placed abovehuman law. Then liberty is found under the law, God’s law, because as the Biblesays, ‘the law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul’ (Psa 19:7). If so, people have the moral duty todisobey a human law that perverts God’s law, for the purpose of civilgovernment is to establish all societies in a godly order of freedom andjustice.

St Augustine ofHippo once wrote that an unjust law is a contradiction in terms. For him, humanlaws could be out of harmony with God’s higher laws, and rulers who enactunjust laws were wicked and unlawful authorities. In The City of God, StAugustine explains that a civil authority that has no regard for justice cannotbe distinguished from a band of robbers. ‘Justice being taken away, then, whatare kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but littlekingdoms?’4

In the same way, StThomas Aquinas considered an unjust law a ‘crooked law’, and, as such, nobodywould have to obey it. For St Aquinas, since God’s justice was the basicfoundation for the rule-of-law system, a ‘law’ that prescribed murder orperjury was not really law, for people would have the moral right to disobeyunjust commands. Rulers who enact unjust ‘law’ cease to be authorities in therightful sense, becoming mere tyrants. The word ‘tyranny’ comes from the Greekfor ‘secular rule’, which means rule by men instead of the rule of law.

Magna Carta

Barons compelledKing John to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede, England, on June 15th,1215. The charter underlies basic rights of the individual according to theChristian worldview. (Image courtesy US National Archives & RecordsAdministration.)

In declaring theequality of all human souls in the sight of God, Christianity compelled thekings of England to recognize the supremacy of the divine law over theirarbitrary will. ‘The absolutist monarch inherited from Roman law was therebycounteracted and transformed into a monarch explicitly under law.’5The Christian religion worked there as a civilizing force and a stranger todespotism. As one may say, ‘The Bible’s message elevated the blood-drinking“barbarians” of the British Isles to decency.’6

At the time ofMagna Carta (1215), a royal judge called Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) wrote amassive treatise on principles of law and justice. Bracton is broadly regardedas ‘the father of the common law’, because his book De legibus etconsuetudinibus Anglia is one of the most important works on theconstitution of medieval England. For Bracton, the application of law implies‘a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite’, which meansthat the state law can never depart from God’s higher laws. As Bractonexplains, jurisprudence was ‘the science of the just and unjust’.7And he also declared that the state is under God and the law, ‘because the lawmakes the king. For there is no king where will rules rather then the law.’8

The Christian faithprovided to the people of England a status libertatis (state of liberty)which rested on the Christian presumption that God’s law always works for thegood of society. With their conversion to Christianity, the kings of Englandwould no longer possess an arbitrary power over the life and property ofindividuals, changing the basic laws of the kingdom at pleasure. Rather, theywere told about God’s promise in the book Isaiah, to deal with civilauthorities who enact unjust laws (Isaiah 10:1). In fact, the Bible contains manypassages condemning the perversion of justice by them (Prov 17:15, 24:23;Exo 23:7; Deut 16:18; Hab 1:4; Isa 60:14; Lam 3:34). In explaining why the citizens ofEngland had much more freedom than their French counterparts, Charles Spurgeon(1834–1892) declared:

‘There is not land beneath the sun wherethere is an open Bible and a preached gospel, where a tyrant long can hold hisplace … Let the Bible be opened to be read by all men, and no tyrant can longrule in peace. England owes her freedom to the Bible; and France will neverpossess liberty, lasting and well-established, till she comes to reverence theGospel, which too long has rejected … The religion of Jesus makes men think,and to make men think is always dangerous to a despot’s power.’9

Reasonsfor a civil government

The first referenceto civil government in the Holy Scriptures is found in chapter 9 of the book ofGenesis. In this chapter, God commands capital punishment for those who takethe life of human beings, who are always created in the image of God. In thissense, the right to execute murderers does not belong to government officialsthemselves, but to God who is the author of life and commands the death penaltyfor murder in several passages of the Holy Scriptures (e.g. Exod 21:12; Num 35:33). Thus, life can only be taken awayfrom the individual if civil authorities apply it under God’s law andcommission, as the sanctity of human life is the basis on which God sanctionscapital punishment. As John Stott explains:

‘Capital punishment, according to the Bible,far from cheapening human life by requiring the murderer’s death, demonstratesits unique value by demanding an exact equivalent to the death of the victim.’10

The state is a‘necessary evil’ that has to be subject to God’s higher laws. After sin enteredin the world, it became necessary to establish the civil government in order tocurb violence (Gen 6:11 13). However, the state was not envisaged inGod’s original plan for mankind, as it places some people in a position ofauthority over others. At the beginning of the creation, however, Genesis tellsus that man and woman lived in close fellowship with God, under His direct andsole authority.11 Then Thomas Paine (1737–1809), a non-Christianhimself, expressed the biblical worldview when he uttered these words:

‘Government even in its best state is but anecessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, orare exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expectin a country without government, our calamities are heightened byreflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, likedress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on theruins of the bowers of paradise.’12

The understandingof civil government as a result of our sinful condition justifies the doctrineof limitation of the state powers. It inspired, in both Britain and America,the establishment of a constitutional order based on checks and balancesbetween the branches of government—namely legislative, executive and judicial.Such division obeys the biblical revelation of God as our supreme Judge,Lawgiver and King (Isa 33:22). Since all humanbeings are born of a sinful nature, the functions of the state ought to belegally checked, because no human being can be trusted with too much power.

Because Godinstilled in each of us a desire for freedom, political tyranny, as LordFortescue (1394–1479) explained, is the attempt on the part of civilauthorities to replace natural freedom by a condition of servitude that onlysatisfies the ‘vicious purposes’ of wicked rulers. As Fortescue put it, the lawof England provided freedom to the people only because it was fully indebted tothe Holy Scriptures. Thus, he quoted from Mark 2:27 to proclaim that the kings are calledto govern for the sake of the kingdom, not the opposite. In this sense, he alsoremarked:

‘A law is necessarily adjudged cruel if itincreases servitude and diminishes freedom, for which human nature alwayscraves. For servitude was introduced by men for vicious purposes. But freedomwas instilled into human nature by God. Hence freedom taken away from menalways desires to return, as is always the case when natural liberty is denied.So he who does not favour liberty is to be deemed impious and cruel.’13

By placing God’shigher laws above human law, Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) considered that thebasic laws of England were not designed by the state, but ‘written with thefinger of God in the human heart’.14 Coke described the constitutionof England as a ‘harmonious system’ sustained primarily by God’s higher laws.Then he went on to declare that no statute enacted by the Parliament is validif it does not respect God and the law. Finally, Lord Coke wisely pointed out:

‘In nature, we see the infinite distinctionof things proceed from some unity, as many rivers from one fountain, manyarteries in the body of man from one heart, many veins from one liver, and manysinews from the brain: so without question this admirable unity and consent insuch diversity of things proceeds only from God, the fountain and founder ofall good laws and constitutions.’15


God’sLaw is above the state law

The human intellectshould not be our basic reference in terms of legality because everyone isaffected by a sinful nature. Then, our basic legal rights should be consideredthe ones revealed by God Himself through the Holy Scriptures. According to thedoctrine of natura delecta, which means that our human nature has beendamaged by the original sin, law is not so much to be based on human wisdom ason God’s wisdom and sovereign will. As the Bible says, ‘The foolishness of Godis wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’sstrength’(1 Cor 1:25).

The rule of law canonly subsist if civil authorities are able to respect the hierarchicalprevalence of God’s higher laws over the state law. Although the law of God isalways perfect, for God’s wisdom is always perfect, human authorities aresinful creatures who might have their minds controlled by desires of the flesh.They may be slaves of sin and rebels against God, although citizens who electsinful people and obey their wicked rulings are slaves of sin as well.

A basic question ofthe rule of law is to know which sort of authority we want as the ultimatesource of power over ourselves: the authority of a loving God or the authorityof a sinful human ruler. If we decide for the sinful ruler, then, as R.J.Rushdoony puts it, ‘we have no right to complain against the rise of totalitarianism,the rise of tyranny—we have asked for it’.20

To avoid tyranny,William Blackstone (1723–1780) once declared that no human law could be validif it contradicted God’s higher laws which maintain and regulate natural humanrights to life, liberty, and property.21 According to Blackstone’sbiblical understanding of the rule of law,

‘No human laws should be suffered tocontradict [God’s] laws … Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us tocommit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offendboth the natural and the divine.’22

Thebiblical understanding of lawful resistance against tyranny

When God delegatesHis supreme authority to human rulers, they have no liberty to use it in orderto justify tyranny. In fact, there are quite remarkable examples in the HolyScriptures where God explicitly commands civil disobedience against the state.For example, Egyptian midwives refused to obey the Pharaoh’s order to killHebrew babies. As the Bible says, ‘[they] feared God and did not do what theking of Egypt told them to do’ (Exod 1:17). Likewise, three Hebrews did not obeyBabylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar, when he commanded everyone to bow down andworship his golden image (Dan 6). Daniel also refused to obey a decree enactedby King Darius, which forced everyone not to pray to any god or men except tohimself.

In the NewTestament, we have the example of the first Apostles’ attitude towards theSanhedrin, a Jewish council of priests and teachers of the law. The councilordered them not to preach in the name of Christ Jesus. However, the Book ofActs says that the Apostles refused to obey their decision, and, as the ApostlePeter boldly declared, ‘We must obey God rather than human authority’ (Acts 5:29, NLT). In fact, the zeal of theApostles for the Lord was so great that they refused to be silenced by unfairrulers, even if such a refusal resulted in arrest and/or execution. Theyconsidered themselves bound by God’s Law in the first place, and kept onpreaching the Gospel as if it were no legal prohibition. To be obeyed,therefore, civil authorities have firstly to obey God and the law. As John Stotthas pointed out:

‘If the state commands what God forbids, orforbids what God commands, then our plain Christian duty is to resist, not tosubmit, to disobey the state in order to obey God … Whenever laws are enactedwhich contradict God’s law, civil disobedience becomes a Christian duty.’23

Although the firstApostles regarded it as totally lawful to disobey ungodly legislation, today’sfollowers of Christ like to quote from chapter 13 of Paul’s letter to theRomans in order to justify their compliance with immoral rules of positive law.However, Paul argues here that we obey the civil authority because it holds ‘noterror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong’ (Rom 13:3 NIV). If the person who holds the statepower abuses his or her God-given power, ‘our duty is not to submit, but toresist’.24 According to F.A. Schaeffer, a more accurateinterpretation of this passage would clearly indicate that ‘the state is to bean agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and toprotect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has not properauthority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and istyranny.’25

God has establishedthe state as delegated authority, not an autonomous power above the law. Whenwe obey the state it is not that we obey individuals who are in charge of thestate machinery, but it is rather for obedience to a God-given authority who iscommanded by God to promote natural principles of liberty and justice.Therefore, as Pope John XXIII explains in his encyclical ‘Pacem in Terris’:

‘Since the right to command is required bythe moral order and has its source in God, it follows that, if civilauthorities pass laws or command anything opposed to the moral order andconsequently contrary to the will of God, neither the laws made nor theauthorizations granted can be binding on the consciences of the citizens, sinceGod has more right to be obeyed than men. Otherwise, authority breaksdown completely and results in shameful abuse.’26

Because Paul alsosays that the Word of God is not to be bound (2 Tim 2:9 NIV), the right of resistance againsttyranny is an important element of the rule-of-law system ordained by Him. Forthis reason, as John Knox (1513–1572) put it, to rebel against a wicked rulercan be the same as to oppose the devil himself, ‘who is the one abusing fromthe sword and authority of God’.27 Knox stated that anyone who daresto rule over a nation against the law of God can be lawfully resisted, even byforce if necessary.28 According to John Knox, if the civil rulerseems to be effectively willing to destroy the Christian foundations of thesociety,

‘[God] hath commanded no obedience, butrather He hath approved, yea, and greatly rewarded, all those who have opposedthemselves to their ungodly commandments and blind rage.’29

Samuel Rutherford(1600–1661), a Scot Presbyterian like John Knox, developed in Lex Rexa consistent doctrine of lawful resistance against political tyranny. Accordingto Rutherford, if people wish to effectively stay free from such tyranny, thenthey will have to preserve their inalienable right to eventually disobey unjustlegislation. For him, ‘A power ethical, politic, or moral, to oppress, is notfrom God, and is not a [lawful] power, but a licentious deviation of a [lawful]power.’30 And in answer to the royalists who liked to use Romans 13in order to condemn any form of resistance against the government, as aresistance against God Himself, Rutherford boldly proclaimed:

Declaration of Independence

American ‘fathers’signing the U.S. Declaration of Independence at Philadelphia, 4 July, 1776. Thedocument states as a ‘self-evident truth’ that all human beings are equallyendowed by God with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness. (Image courtesy library of Congress, Prints andPhotographs Division, Detroit Publishing Company Collection.)

‘It is a blasphemy to think or say that whena king is drinking the blood of innocents and wasting the Church of God, thatGod, if he were personally present, would commit these same acts of tyranny.’31

John Locke(1634–1704), whose legal and political ideas provided legal justification tothe 1688 ‘Glorious Revolution’ in Britain, argued that lawmakers put themselvesinto a ‘state of war’ against the society whenever they endeavour to destroyour God-given ‘natural’ rights to life, liberty and property. For Locke, nogovernment has the right to reduce these basic rights of the individualcitizen. If so, Locke argued that people would be left ‘at the common refugethat God has provided for all men against force and violence’.32

The American FoundingFathers fully acknowledged the principle of lawful resistance against tyranny,and drew heavily from this in order to justify their revolutionary actionsagainst the British government, in 1776. Written by Thomas Jefferson, the USDeclaration of Independence argues that revolution is the last recourse of afree people against ‘a long train of abuses and usurpations’ on the part of thegovernment. Thus, they justified their actions on the grounds that God hasendowed each human being with natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuitof happiness, which are basic rights that not even the state can take away fromthem.

Of course, anyrevolutionary uprising, as Pope Paul VI comments in his encyclical ‘PopularumProgressio’, can only be justified in extraordinary situations ‘where there isa manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamentalpersonal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country’.33However, the recourse to violence, as a means to right the wrongs of the stateagainst the rule of law, risks itself to produce new forms of injustice.Therefore, Pope Paul VI also stated that revolutionary uprising can only becarried out as the last remedy against long-standing tyranny, because, as heput it, ‘a real evil should not be fought against at the cost of greatermisery’.33

Therule of law, Christianity and human rights

Westerners who disparage theirChristian heritage should get much better informed …

According to theJudeo-Christian worldview, human beings were created by God and, as such, havenever ‘acquired’ their basic rights from the state. Nor are such basic rights aresult of any work performed by them, but it flows directly from the nature ofeach human being who is always conceived in the image of a loving God (Gen 1:26).

According to Genesis 1:27 28, God created all human beings, male andfemale, in His own image, commanding them to fill the earth and subdue it. Wefound here a very special meaning for the recognition of human dignity, as theresult of the relationship between God and His human creatures, which the Fallhas distorted but not destroyed. From this fact it follows, for instance, thatwidows will not be burned on their husband’s funeral pyre, as they still are inIndia, and that people will not be sold to slavery, as they still are in Sudan.34

Every year, FreedomHouse, a secular organization, conducts a survey to analyze the situation ofdemocracy and human rights across the globe. Year after year, it concludes thatthe most rights-based and democratic nations are the majority-Protestant ones.On the other hand, Islam and Marxism, the latter a secular religion, seem tooffer the most serious obstacles for the realization of democracy and humanrights. In fact, the denial of the broadest range of basic human rights comesprecisely from Marxist and majority-Muslim countries. The worst violators ofhuman rights are Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and theone-party Marxist regimes of Cuba and North Korea.35

In contrast toIslam, Christianity has democratized political manners, and still is the mainmoral force that holds democratic values together in the West. It provides thestrongest argument for the protection of basic human rights. For Paul L. Maier,Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, ‘no other religion,philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world forthe better as Christianity has done’.36

In declaring thatwe all stand on equal ground before God, Christianity gives the best moralfoundations for social and political equality.34 If Christianity isfound to be true, the individual, male or female, is not only more importantbut incomparably more important than the social body. This helps to explain, inCharles Colson’s opinion, ‘why Christianity has always provided not only avigorous defence of human rights but also the sturdiest bulwark againsttyranny’.34

Conclusion

A visible fact inthese days of moral relativism is the gradual abandonment of the Christianfaith and culture in the Western world. As a result, the moral foundations forthe rule of law have been seriously undermined. Westerners who believe thatabandonment of Christianity will serve for democracy and the rule of law areblindly ignoring that such abandonment has already brought totalitarianism andmass-murder to several Western countries, particularly to Germany and Russia.Any honest analysis of contemporary Western history would have to recognizethat no effective legal protection against tyranny can, in the long run, besustained without the higher standards of justice and morality brought into thetexture of Western societies by Christianity.

Westerners whodisparage their Christian heritage should get much better informed that were itnot for this religion, they would not have the freedoms they enjoy today, forinstance, to dishonour the very source of these freedoms, namely Christianity.37Regarding the present climate of multiculturalism, it would be better for themto think much more carefully on the words uttered by a great historian, CarltonHayes:

‘Wherever Christians’ ideals have beengenerally accepted and their practice sincerely attempted, there is a dynamicliberty; and wherever Christianity had been ignored or rejected, persecuted orchained to the state, there is tyranny.’38


Referencesand notes

  1. Frothingham, R., The Rise of the Republic of the United States, Brown, Boston, MA, p. 6, 1910. Return to text.
  2. Constant, B., De La Liberté Des Anciens Comparée à celle des Modernes; from: ‘Écrits Politiques’, Folio, Paris, pp. 591–619, 1997. Return to text.
  3. Fustel De Coulanges, N.D., The Ancient City : A Classic Study of the Religious and Civil Institutions of Ancient Greece and Rome, Doubleday Anchor, New York, p. 223, 1955. Return to text.
  4. St Augustine; The City of God, Book III, par. 28, Cambridge University Press, Cambrdge, UK, 1998. Return to text.
  5. Tamanaha, B.Z., On The Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 23, 2004. Return to text.
  6. Batten, D. (Ed.), The Answers Book, Creation Ministries International, Brisbane, p. 7, 1999. Return to text.
  7. Bracton, H., On the Laws and Customs of England, Vol. II, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 25, 1968. Return to text.
  8. Bracton, ref. 7, p. 33. Return to text.
  9. Spurgeon, C.H., Joy Born at Bethlehem; in: Water, M. (Ed.), Multi New Testament Commentary, John Hunt, London, p. 195, 1871. Return to text.
  10. Stott, J., Christian Basics: An Invitation to Discipleship, Monarch Books, London, p. 79, 2003. Return to text.
  11. Adamthwaite, M., Civil Government, Salt Shakers 9:3, June 2003. Return to text.
  12. Paine, T., Of the origin and design of government; in: Boaz, D. (Ed.), The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman, Free Press, New York, p. 7, 1997. Return to text.
  13. Fortescue, Sir J., De Laudibus Legum Anglie, translated with Introduction by Chrimes, S.B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Chapter XLII, p. 105, 1949. Return to text.
  14. 7 Co. Rep. I, 77 Eng. Rep. 277 (K.B. 1960). Apud: Wu, John C.H.; Fountain of Justice: A Study in the Natural Law, Sheed and Ward, New York, p. 91, 1955.Return to text.
  15. Coke, Sir E., Third Reports, 3. Apud: Sandoz; Elliz; The Roots of Liberty—Introduction; in: The Roots of Liberty: Magna Carta, Ancient Constitution, and Anglo-American Tradition of the Rule of Law, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, MO, p. 137, 1993. Return to text.
  16. See Noebel, D., The Battle for Truth, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR, p. 232, 2001. Return to text.
  17. Rushdoony, R.J., Law and Liberty, Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, p. 33, 1984. Return to text.
  18. Kmiec, D.W., Liberty misconceived: Hayek’s incomplete theory of the relationship between natural and customary law; in: Ratnapala, S. and Moens, G.A. (Eds.), Jurisprudence of Liberty, Butterworths, Adelaide, SA, Australia, p. 145, 1996. Return to text.
  19. De Montesquieu, C., The Spirit of Laws, Book I, Chapter 1, 1748. Return to text.
  20. Rushdoony, ref. 17, p. 35. Return to text.
  21. Blackstone, W., The Sovereignty of the Law—Selections from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, McMillan Publishers, London, pp. 58–59, 1973.Return to text.
  22. Blackstone, ref. 21, pp. 27–31. Return to text.
  23. Stott, J., The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World, Inter-Varsity Press, London, p. 342, 1994. Return to text.
  24. Stott, ref. 10, p. 78. Return to text.
  25. Schaeffer, F.A., A Christian Manifesto, Crossway, Westchester, p. 91, 1988. Return to text.
  26. Pacem in Terris, Encylical letter of Pope John XXIII, Paragraph 51, 1963. Return to text.
  27. Knox, J., On Rebellion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 192, 1994. Return to text.
  28. Knox, ref. 27, p. 178. Return to text.
  29. Knox, ref. 27, p. 95. Return to text.
  30. Rutherford, S., ‘Lex Rex’, or The Law and the Prince; in: The Presbyterian Armoury, vol. 3, p. 34, 1846. Return to text.
  31. Rutherford, ref. 30, Arg. 4. Return to text.
  32. Locke, J., Second Treatise on Civil Government, Sec. 222; From Locke, J., Political Writings, Penguin Books, London, p. 374, 1993. Return to text.
  33. Popularum Progressio, Encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI, Paragraph 31, 1967. Return to text.
  34. Colson, C. and Pearcey, N., How Now Shall We Live? Tyndale, Wheaton, IL, p. 131, 1999. Return to text.
  35. Karatnycky, A., Piano, A. and Puddington, A. (Eds.),Freedom in the World 2003: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, Freedom House, New York, pp. 11–12, 2003. Return to text.
  36. Maier, P.L., foreword to: Schmidt, A.J., How Christianity Changed the World, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 9, 2004. Return to text.
  37. Schmidt, A.J., How Christianity Changed the World, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 13, 2004. Return to text.
  38. Hayes, C.J.H., Christianity and Western Civilization, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, p. 21, 1954. Return to text.

 

http://creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-liberty-and-resistance-against-tyranny