Francis Rous - Political Thought

Political Thought

A debate was initiated by Rous in a brief pamphlet in April 1649 in which he argued that allegiance could be given to the Commonwealth even though it were achnowledged to be an illegal power. Rous focused on a key biblical text - holding that St Paul's injunction in Romans 13: 1-2 to obey "the powers that be" because they are ordained of God had to be taken literally. His essential argument, which in effect mirrored the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, was that the mere fact that a government had the capacity to rule and was capable of commanding the subject's obedience was sufficient evidence of God's will and providence in establishing the government.

Rous's pamphlet was immediately attacked by those who argued that he was ignoring the Pauline distinction between authority and power: the anonymous author of The Grand Case of Conscience Stated (no place nor date of publication), for example, argued that "when any shall usurp Authority, by whatsoever title or force he procures it, such may be obeyed in reference to their power, while they command lawful things, but not in reference to Authority" (p. 3), yet "they cannot illegally get themselves the legal power, nor can they exclude others from their Authority, although by force they may keep them the exercise of it" (p. 8).

In his pamphlet, Rous deployed a secondary argument that did not rest on scripture but on a Hobbesian social contract. What Rous argued was that "when a person or persons have gotten Supreme Power, and by the same excluded all other from authority, either that authority which is thus taken by power must be obeyed, or else all authority and government must fall to the ground; and so confusion (which is worse than titular tyranny) be admitted into a Commonwealth" (Rous, Lawfulnes, pp. 7–8).