Though the idea of the Rule of law was considered the universal value which governmental legitimacy was supposed to comply with, the results of its practice showed various styles, caused by the difference in interpreting as well as performing the formal and substantial essentials of the Rule of law. The so-called formal essentials were concerning "procedural elements", including the rule by law, formal legality and democratic procedure of legislation. On the other hand, the substantial essentials were concerning "normative contents" such as individual rights, human dignity or justice and social welfare. It was not because of the set of formal and substantial essentials making the Rule of law varied but the difference of understanding the substantial essentials so as to create diverse evaluations of the same behaviour in terms of different laws and regulations. Therefore, unless we could grant that only the existence per se of the Rule of law is necessary condition to reach an agreement about the idea, it was required to further explore how to depict the statement of the Rule of law to make it consistent when concerning the issue. This study hereby stated first the distinction between the Rule of law and the Rule of man so as to explain why the Rule of law should be praised. The study would then briefly introduced the developments and the emphases of German Rechtsstaat theory and Anglo-American theory of the Rule of Law from the perspective of history, and thereby abstracting the formal elements and the raison d'etre of the Rule of law. This study would also treat the issues confronted the two theories so as to conclude that the core of the Rule of law lied in preventing the government from arbitrariness and protecting the rights of citizens. If the formal essentials could not achieve this goal, problems like unjust legislations and Rule by judges would be heard, and distorting the very meaning of the distinction between the Rule of law and the Rule of man. However, since it is impossible to draft the exhaustive Bill of Rights, the interpretation of the substance of the Rule of law is supposed to be different from the establishment of written constitutional rights. The viewpoint of only excluding rights-violation and establishing regulations in constitutional law level should be replaced by proposing the effective rights-claiming or the actual remedies of rights. Moreover, it was suggested that the Rule of law should adopt the active attitudes of acceptance so as to balance the interaction between traditional and novel rights, and to make the Rule of law not just content with giving a fixed range of rights, but to pursue a regular range of rights.