Elected King’s are More Kings than Hereditary Ones

Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex, Rex,” q. 11

A king by election is more of a king than one by hereditary succession.  

A people do not have the authority to make a king supreme or absolute, as this would be to resign their own natural birthright to defend themselves. No people have the right to destroy themselves, and therefore cannot give that right to a king.

A people can have a political power even prior to their having established formal rulers. Considered merely as men and without any formal association together, they do not have political power; nevertheless, prior to having any rulers, they can convene and associate themselves together and appoint political rulers, something they could not do if they had no political power. Their pre-magistrate political power is a virtual power to make law for themselves, to make rulers for themselves, and hence to make rulers who can make law for themselves.

A community by itself lacks the formal power to punish its members, for punishment involves inflicting an evil contrary to nature. In appointing rulers and agreeing to laws, however, a people consents to being punished by the ruler on condition of their having first transgressed the law. Rutherford compares the situation with that of a school child who willingly goes to a school and submits himself to the school rules and discipline if he breaks any school laws.

His general preference for elected over hereditary monarchy notwithstanding, Rutherford closes the chapter by acknowledging that there are particular circumstances in which a hereditary monarchy can be preferable to an elected one. When a kingdom is first being constituted, for example, election is better, but in a an already constituted kingdom, hereditary monarchy is less evil than otherwise. Where liberty is a concern, election is preferable, but where safety and peace are at issue, hereditary may be a safer and nearer solution.