Usury in the Middle Ages

The "fall" of the Roman Empire not only marked the end of a powerful geo-political entity of stability for most of Europe, but it also ushered in the demise of an economy that had dominated the continent for centuries.  With the dawn of the "Dark Ages," Europeans of all stripes were forced to start from scratch and to establish new rules to govern the newly emerging political, social and economic practices that were emerging in the post-Roman world.

Among the many issues dealt with at this time was the practice of usury (interest practices on monetary loans).  During the height of the Roman Empire, usury had been, by and large, an approved practice, though it was almost exclusively a privatized enterprise.  Wealthy citizens could, if they so chose, grant loans with fixed interest rates (though the empire did, at times, place certain restrictions on those rates), thereby allowing a quasi-privatized banking system to arise.  With the rise of the Catholic church in the early 4th century, however, the practice of usury was met with stern disapproval by early Christian leaders.  For these early Christians, the teachings of Jesus, and of the Bible itself, made the practice of usury not only undesirable but downright sinful.  From the Book of Deuteronomy:

19.) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

20.) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thous settest thine hand to in the land...

This clear commandment against the practice of usury (with the exception given in bold for a "stranger," a loophole that Medieval Jews found quite useful) served as more than sufficient ammunition to criminalize the practice for the majority of the Middle Ages.  The elimination of Usury was unanimously accepted during the 325 Council of Nicea.  In the eighth century under Charlemagne, usury was, under the law, considered to be a general criminal offence.  In 1179, at the Third Council of the Latean, anyone found benefiting from the practice of usury was prohibited from taking the sacraments and could eventually be excommunicated entirely.  Later, Pope Sixtus V would call the practice of usury, "most detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."

So, if the practice of usury was so deplorable to Medieval Christians, how did it eventually become standard operating procedure?  And how are Christians today (along with capitalism in general) able to so gleefully support its continued existence?

The answer rests primarily with the rise of trade and (eventually) Mercantilism in Europe.  As European society continued to progress through the Middle Ages, the growth of trade and finance forced change upon a society that was, for centuries, operating on a set of rules that issued divine punishment for certain practices (such as usury).  But these divine punishments eventually had to give way to the sweeping tides of change. 

Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found and along with the growing tide of commercialization, the pro-usury counter-movement began to grow.  Nobles and other elites of European society quickly discovered that the practice of usury was virtually a gold mine waiting to be tapped.  As trade and commercialization began to spread its roots further out into the Middle East and the Orient, European powers saw greater opportunities to increase their wealth.  Even holy religious orders like the famous Knights Templar got into the act by taking advantage of their complex network of members that were branched out all across the European countryside.  

But not everyone was in favor of this new justification on an old sin.  Both Martin Luther and John Calvin, along with their followers, expressed severe disappointment with what was taking place, going so far as to claim that those who practice usury were carrying the "mark of the beast" mentioned of in the Book of Revelations.  In many ways, this conflict between the pro and anti-usury crowds helped to spark much of the Antisemitism that began to permeate Europe at the latter portion of the Middle Ages.  

In the end, the economic and social revolutions taking place throughout Europe, coupled with the eventual discovery of the "New World" made the conversion to an acceptance of usury a virtual guarantee.  The new demands for goods from all across the globe created an environment that was simply too rich for the practice of usury not to flourish.  This, of course, eventually contributed to the rise of market capitalism, which is essentially married to the practice of usury.  As a result, the long-held prohibition on usury had gone the way of the Dodo Bird.  

The Medieval Origins of Capitalism

I've never been a huge fan of economics.  In my opinion, the difference between most economic theories and practices is predominantly one of semantics.  In the end, all systems of exchange can be reduced to their common denominator: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. No one system is really all that preferable to another (in my opinion). With that said, studying the history and evolution of economics does help to shed light on the changes and advances that have been made in society, and the efforts to even the playing field for all of humanity.

And when it comes to the study of economics, no system is more important to the modern Western world than capitalism.  For many Americans, capitalism is every bit as important of a component to the founding of their nation as is the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution (even though the Founding Fathers never really put capitalism on their radar).  And though there is much to say for the more modern conceptualizations of capitalism (i.e. Adam Smith, Max Weber, etc.) the original origins of capitalism hail back to a time before the "New World" had even been discovered.  

The world that was 14th century Europe was a world in constant flux.  Severe political, religious, social, economic and health problems plagued (literally) the landscape.  These mitigating factors brought with them sweeping tides of change that helped to redefine European society.  For instance, the Black Death, along with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, had ravaged the countryside, claiming at least 1/3 of the populace in the process.  The massive loss of laborers caused a dramatic change to the Manorial and Feudal systems in almost all of Europe.  This lack of laborers created new opportunities for the peasantry to move about and benefit from additional markets.  In addition, the development of newer agricultural technologies revitalized the markets of a suffering Europe.  Eventually, the emergence of Calvinist doctrines, particularly regarding worldly success as a symbol of God's favor, encouraged further growth, all of which gave rise to the earliest embryonic form of capitalism known as Mercantilism.   Needless to say, these advances fit nicely with the discovery of the "New World" in the following century, and eventually evolved to become a staple in the Western world. 

Of course, I am not suggesting that our modern understanding of capitalism existed in the Middle Ages.  Far from it.  But it is fair to say that an infant form of the system was beginning to emerge during the middle part of the 14th century.  Improvements in naval travel helped to augment the trade markets to and from Europe, and increased the demand for goods.  As a result, an emerging class of specialized laborers found themselves having access to a measure of wealth that had never before existed under feudalism.   Skeptics will, of course, point out that improvements in trade and the emergence of new markets don't necessarily equate to capitalism and they are right.  But there is a large body of evidence for commercial activity in the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Mediterranean, which deserves to be recognized for its enterprise and sophistication.  Mediterranean, and particularly Italian, merchants traded in high-value luxury goods, like spices, gems, dyes, and exotic metalwork. And although goods like these had circulated the seas for centuries, the volume and value of this trade increased dramatically in the wake of the struggles of the 14th century.  And it is very unlikely that such an expansion would have occurred under the old systems of manorialism and feudalism, which insisted on being self-reliant and relatively localized in scope.  Therefore, the expansion that took place in the 14th century should be seen as the result of the many social and economic changes that had taken place.

As you can see in the map above, European and Middle Eastern traders were active across a wide swathe of the Mediterranean world. To this end, the major Italian cities established trading colonies, to protect their interests abroad and monopolize the sources of desirable goods. These cities included, Amalfi, Naples, Genoa, and of course, Venice. The merchant-imperialism of these cities went hand in hand with the complex ways of investing and launching trading missions organised by the merchants themselves.  In addition, it was this expansive trade system that eventually allowed Arabian literature, architecture, mathematics, etc. to make their way into the European heartland, thus helping to ignite the Renaissance.  It's not a stretch to suggest that without these advances, Europe may never have had its De Vinci.

 In conclusion, what we can glean from the history and origins of capitalism (or any other economic system for that matter) is that it didn't come into existence overnight.  It took a great deal of time to evolve into what we have today, and frankly, it's still evolving.  Economic systems are static, unchangeable concepts, but rather are fluid and ever-changing.  This is certainly the case with capitalism.  From its birth in the Middle Ages to its existence today as the predominant means of exchange in the Western World today, capitalism has had a long and interesting history.  Will it last?  I have no idea.  As I said at the beginning of this post, I don't believe there is all that much difference between rival economic systems to begin with, but then again, I never lived in Feudal Europe.  

Christian Restorationism in America

From Three Unique Perspectives

First off, my deepest apologies for my lengthy absence from this blog. I have been very busy as of late and unfortunately haven't been able to engage in blogging. I have really missed everyone and look forward to rekindling my blogging habit.

One of the interesting components of American religion is how the doctrines, traditions and creeds of traditional (and dare I say European) Christianity were given a uniquely American flavor once they crossed the Atlantic. This natural evolution of American religion fused the traditional liturgies, customs and doctrines of the Old World with the emerging democratic, capitalistic practices of the New World, creating new and exciting interpretations of what it truly meant to be Christian.

Today I want to present three unique viewpoints from three very different individuals (Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith), each of whom attempted to discover the "original" version of Christianity as outlined by Jesus Christ himself. By asserting the need for a RESTORATION of Christ's original gospel (or the original meaning behind his message), these three individuals were essentially able to detour around traditional European Christianity, thus creating a doctrine unique to their respective viewpoints. Of course, these three individuals are far from being the exclusive competitors in the quest for Christ's Christianity. Virtually every religious leader, movement and church has attempted to stake such a claim for themselves in the hopes of attaining legitimate credibility for their movement. With that said, these three individuals represent three important general movements in the story of American religious history, and I believe their stories help to shed light on the complex yet beautiful tapestry that is American Christianity.

Roger Williams

As our first test subject I offer up the infamous rogue Puritan preacher, Roger Williams. As we all know, Williams was a deeply inquisitive man. His knack for questioning everything around him (particularly the religious beliefs and practices of his day) caused Williams to constantly push the envelope in Puritan America. Though he originally embraced Puritan theology, Williams' concerns that Puritanism still maintained an attachment to the Church of England, which he saw as a continuation of Roman Catholic dominion as the Antichrist, caused him to adopt a more Separatist perspective. Inspired by these anti-Church of England sentiments, Williams embraced the admonition of the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:17 to, "come out from among them, and be ye separate."

Williams not only decided to completely separate himself from any attachment to the Church of England, but also chose to separate from the home world itself. Upon his arrival to the "New World," Williams took his religious views even further. Instead of following the traditional beliefs of the early Puritans in Massachusetts, Williams chose to criticize his new neighbors for what he saw as a lack of penance on their part. While Massachusetts Puritans were happy to accept both the godly and ungodly in their worship services (with an exception being made for the Lord's Supper) Williams believed that those outside of God's grace should not be permitted to worship with elect. In other words, those who had not yet experienced God's saving grace could not even attend the same services as those that had received God's grace (See The Hireling Ministry None of Christs). In addition, Williams also believed that any person who had not repented for his/her former association with the Church of England was in danger of losing their salvation. As Williams stated:

"why although I confesse with joy the care of the New English Churches, that no person be received to Fellowship with them, in whom they cannot first discerne true Regeneration, and the life of Jesus: yet I said and still affirm, that godlie and regenerate persons are not fitted to constitute the true Christian Church, untill it hath pleased God to convince their soules of the evill of the falce Church, Ministry, Worship etc. And although I confesse that godly persons are not dead but living Trees, not dead, but living Stones, and need no new regeneration, yet need they a mighty worke of God's Spirit to humble and ashame them, and to cause them to loath themselves for their Abominations or stincks in Gods nostrils..." (The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, vol. 1, 350).

These religious views, which eventually landed Williams in trouble with the Puritans of Massachusetts, only tell part of the story. Williams' departure to Rhode Island actually caused him to further question his faith. Williams began to question the validity of his baptism and those of his followers, which eventually helped to spawn the Anabaptist movement. As Williams continued to ponder the Bible and its teachings, he eventually came to the shocking conclusion that no church had the authority to assemble in Christ's name. His reasoning was simple: The apostles commissioned by Christ had been his personal ministers on earth. Until Christ returned to the earth and renewed the apostleship, no person/persons had the right or authority to gather as a Christian Church. In other words, Roger Williams began to believe that a complete and total RESTORATION of Christ's gospel, complete with the authority of the holy apostleship, had to return to the earth, or no religion could rightfully act in the name of God. Williams makes this belief clear when he writes:

I desired to have been dilligent and Constant Observer, and have been my selfe many ways engaged in City, in Countrey, in Court, in Schools, in Universities, in Churches, in Old and New-England, and yet cannot in the holy presence of God bring in the Result of a satisfying discovery, that either the Begetting Ministry of the Apostles or Messengers to the Nations, or Feeding and Nourishing Ministry of Pastors and Teachers, according to the first Institution of the Lord Jesus, are yet restored and extant" (The Complete Writing of Roger Williams, vol. III, 160).

Williams continues his argument:

"If Christs Churches were utterly nullified, and quite destroyed by Antichrist, then I demande when they beganne againe and where? who beganne them? that we may knowe, by what right and power they did beginne them: for we have not heard of any new Jo: Baptist, nor of any other newe waye from heaven, by which they have begunne the Churches a newe" (John Winthrop Papers, vol. III, 11. Quoted in Roger Williams: The Church and the State, 52, by Edmund Morgan).

What is interesting about these comments (which eventually led to Williams' exile from Massachusetts) is how similar they are to those made nearly 200 years later by Mormon Founder Joseph Smith (to be discussed later). His call for a restoration of the holy apostleship essentially attempts to negate the Christianity of Europe, which in Williams' mind was never legit to begin with.

Thomas Jefferson

Up next is America's favorite founding skeptic, the author of the DOI itself. As most already know, Jefferson was no friend to traditional Christianity. His altering of the Bible and statements in opposition to the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. are all evidence that Jefferson disapproved of traditional Christianity. Yet with that said, it is also important to remember the fact that Jefferson called himself a "true Christian." How exactly did he justify this claim?

He did so by insinuating that Jesus himself was not the savior of mankind but instead a marvellous (perhaps the greatest) philosopher of all-time. As Jefferson stated:

"It is the innocence of his [Jesus'] character, the purity and sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquences of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them, that I so much admire."

This was the lost truth of Christianity that Jefferson hoped to RESTORE. As he stated in an 1818 letter to Wells and Lilly of the Classical Press:

"I make you my acknowledgement for the sermon on the Unity of God, and am glad to see our countrymen looking that question in the face. it must end in a return to primitive Christianity" [my emphasis].

And on another occasion:

"The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages." [my emphasis]. (Thomas Jefferson, The writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7, H.A. Washington, ed., pp210, 257).

Later in his life, in a letter to Francis van der Kemp, Jefferson stated:

"I trust with you that the genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practised by himself. very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye" [my emphasis].

For Jefferson, the restoration of Christ's true message was not the reinstitution of the holy apostleship as Williams and Smith desired, nor was it found in Williams' Puritan doctrine of God's supreme grace. Instead, it was the simple message of doing good to others with out the fanfare of ceremonial rituals and communion with the Holy Spirit:

My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin's [doctrine], that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.
(Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Parker, May 15, 1819).

As evidenced above, Jefferson's love for Jesus came not from a pious devotion to orthodoxy, but from a sincere appreciation of his message of love. In this respect, Jefferson's restoration subverts all of traditional Christianity by eliminating the divinity of the child of Bethlehem and placing him with the likes of Plato and Aristotle.

Joseph Smith

And last but not least, we look at the founder of Mormonism, whose interpretation of Christian restorationism embodies the fundamental doctrine of the church he helped to create. As a young man in western New York, Smith was a first-hand witness to the excitement and fervor brought on by what historians now call the Second Great Awakening:

There was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of the country, indeed the whole district of the Country seemed affected by it and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division among the people…Priest contended against priest, and convert against convert so that all their good feelings one for another were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions (Joseph Smith, Jr., “1839 History,” The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. I, 269-270).

For Smith, this state of religious fervor caused deep concern, so much so that he eventually prayed to God for guidance, only to receive a heavenly manifestation that eventually culminated in what Smith called the Restoration of Jesus Christ's pure gospel:

To find ourselves engaged in the very same order of things as observed by the holy Apostles of old; to realize the importance and solemnity of such proceedings, and to witness and feel with our own natural senses, the like glorious manifestations of the power of the priesthood; the gifts and blessings of the Holy Ghost; and the goodness and condescension of a merciful God, unto such as obey the everlasting gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, combined to create within us sensations of rapturous gratitude, and inspire us with fresh zeal and energy, in the cause of truth.

For Smith and the Mormon movement in general, this restoration of the priesthood and the apostleship became the cornerstone of their faith; a faith that was able to side-step the Christianity of old Europe by exposing its lack of authenticity. Like Williams and Jefferson before him, Smith's version of Christian restorationism did not rely on the pillars of traditional orthodoxy but still made a claim to legitimacy. It is therefore no wonder why Mormonism has been able to survive and thrive in the "New World" for over a century.

In conclusion, though Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith may share little in common with regards to their personal religious convictions, their quest to arrive at the true nature of Christ's teachings, without the aid of traditional European doctrines, helps us to see a small segment of the uniqueness of American Christianity. Whether it takes the form of revamping traditionally held beliefs (Williams), removing long-held superstitions (Jefferson), or rewriting the story altogether (Smith), Christian Restorationism in America has given the masses a plethora of beliefs to choose from.

Romans 13 and the American Revolution

Over at my other blog (American Creation) a large debate over the significance and interpretation of Romans chapter 13 has been raging for the past few months. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Romans 13, it is a chapter in which the Apostle Paul lays out some of the "rules" regarding a Christian's duty to follow civic leaders. Here are a few of the more important verses from that chapter:

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

As is evident in the aforementioned verses, Paul admonishes the Christian populace to submit to even the wickedest of leaders because "Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." In other words, to defy a leader is to defy God himself.

Immediately prior to the American Revolution, a decent percentage of theologians became deeply concerned with the Biblical implications of the American Revolution. Was God going to be angry at the colonists for their rebellion to the British King? Especially when we consider that Paul was admonishing the Christians to submit to the horrific reign of Nero? After all, if submission to Nero was imperative to the salvation of the practicing Christian, what right did the American colonists have to rebel against a King who wasn't nearly as bad?

As I mentioned before, this has been a very intense and thorough debate over at my group blog. I have watched, over the past several months, my fellow blog brothers debate this issue into dust. This debate usually follows the same rough outline where one person will enter the ring armed to the teeth with quotes from Locke, Rutherford, Sidney, Mayhew, Calvin, Jefferson, etc., etc., etc. Not soon after, my email inbox will be full of comment notifications, full of anxious rebukings, most of which are, like the original comment itself, delivered with powerful counter-punch material from some of the same sources. Now, it's not that I dislike this back-and-forth debating over this singular (and in my opinion, relatively unimportant) issue. On the contrary. I have found the debate to be both extremely enlightening and quite entertaining. I've admired the abilities and passions of the "key participants" (you know who you are) along with the enormous arsenal of knowledge and understanding they possess.

With that said, my personal beliefs are that the Romans 13 issue was a mere side issue compared to the other pressing challenges taking place. In a nutshell, I simply do not believe that this was as big of an issue as many are making it out to be. Please, don't get me wrong here. I realize that it was a major issue for many people. After all, obeying the will of God is no small sack of potatoes, and I realize that many people believed that salvation (not just worldly freedom) hung in the balance. However, if we take a step back and look at the grand picture, I believe we can see that the American Revolution was much larger than one simple chapter from the "Good Book" and that war with Britain was going to happen with or without Romans 13.

With all of that said, I am going to try and play along as best I can. Let's assume that I am completely wrong and that the Romans 13/God sanctioning rebellion was not only an issue but THE ISSUE of the American Revolution. Given this new sense of importance I still maintain that the debate surrounding Romans 13 was not that big of a deal for those involved in the American Revolution.

Why you ask? Because the matter had already been resolved...

...

...At lest for those who established the American republic.

Long before the Founding Fathers arrived on the scene the debate over the Kingship/rule of law had been raging for centuries. As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, a number of important theologians, thinkers, and civic leaders took up this very cause as their own. Everyone from Locke to Rutherford, Sidney to Montesquieu helped to mold how the founding generation would come to understand the relationship between God and government, government and the people and the people's duty to government.

Much has been made of Romans 13 and rightfully so. But there is another Bible chapter to consider; one that inspired a certain Samuel Rutherford to challenge Divine Right kingship. In Deuteronomy 17 we read:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

For men like Rutherford, this was clear-cut evidence from God himself that the LAW was king, not the other way around.

Algernon Sidney, whom Thomas Jefferson credited (along with Locke) as being one of the primary sources for the American conceptualization of individual liberty, agreed with Rutherford's interpretation that the rule of law was to be superior to any kingship. To defend his thesis, Sidney appealed to the very laws of nature:

If there be any precept, that by the light of nature we can in matters of this kind look upon as certain, it is, that the government of a people should be given to him that can best perform the duties of it. No man has it for himself, or from himself; but for and from those, who, before he had it, were his equals, that he may do good to them. If there were a man, who in wisdom, valour, justice, and purity, surpassed all others, he might be called a king by nature; because he is best able to bear the weight of so great a charge; and, like a good shepherd, to lead the people to do good . . . Solomon tells us, 'That a wise child is better than an old and foolish king.'

[...]

If governments arise from the consent of men, and are instituted by men according to their own inclinations, they did therein seek their own good; for the will is ever drawn by some real good, or the appearance of it. This is that which man seeks by all the regular or irregular motions of his mind. Reason and passion, virtue and vice, do herein concur.... A people therefore that sets up [government does it so]...that it may be well with themselves and their posterity.

Which of course sounds awfully familiar to:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

For Jefferson, who was never a big fan of St. Paul to begin with (you may recall that his version of the Bible contains none of Paul's epistles), Sidney's interpretation of law rang strong and clear as it pierced through the "old school" interpretation of complete submission to God's rulers. In a letter to his chubby little New England buddy John Adams, Jefferson points out just how appealing Sidney's view of government was:

I have lately undertaken to read Algernon Sidney on government...As often as I have read it, and fumbled it over, it now excites fresh admiration that this work has excited so little interest in the literary world. As splendid an edition of it as the art of printing can produce —- as well for the intrinsic merit of the work, as for the proof it brings of the bitter sufferings of the advocates of liberty from that time to this, and to show the slow progress of moral, philosophical, and political illumination in the world —- ought to be now published in America.

Of course skeptics will point out that the American Revolution cannot, in any way, be reconciled with Romans 13 because if Paul admonishes Christians to endure the treacheries of Nero, how can they possibly justify rebellion against a king who simply raised their taxes? Perhaps they are right. There may be no biblical way to justify the American Revolution. I suppose one could cite Biblical examples such as Deuteronomy 17, 1 Kings 11, Daniel's civil disobedience, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's refusal to obey Nebuchadneezar's laws, Moses, etc., but I doubt much of it would stick. Simply put,much of this debate is based off of personal biblical interpretation.

And such was the case with our founders. The moment that Jefferson, Madison, etc. committed to embracing the perspectives of Locke, Sidney, etc. they also committed, perhaps subconscientiously, to rejecting a literal interpretation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

But Paul's lesson wasn't completely ignored either. Yes, the framers of the Revolution were not about to let some obscure chapter from the Bible deter them but at the same time, they weren't about to rush into a reckless rebellion either. The trick was knowing when abuses from tyrannical leaders required a response from the people. Again, Algernon Sidney helped to provide the answer:

Those who had wit and learning, with something of ingenuity and modesty, though they believed that nations might possibly make an ill use of their power, and were very desirous to maintain the cause of kings, as far as they could put any good color upon it, yet never denied, that some had suffered justly (which could not be, if there were no power of judging them); animate them to persist in the most flagitious courses, with assurance of perpetual impunity, or engage nations in an inevitable necessity of suffering all manner of outrages. They knew that the actions of those princes, who are not altogether detestable, might be defended by particular reasons drawn from them, or their laws or their country; and would neither undertake the defense of such as were abominable, nor bring princes, to whom they wished well, into the odious extremity of justifying themselves by arguments that favored Caligula and Nero, as well as themselves, and that must be taken for a confession, that they were as bad as could be imagined.

[...]

They who are already fallen into all that is odious, and shameful and miserable, cannot justify fear...Let the dangers never be so great, there is the possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms and courage to use them but that people must surely perish who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed.

Or in other words, it is completely silly (and contrary to the laws of nature) to endure inept leaders who had demonstrated their incompetence or their ill will towards their subjects. Or as Jefferson put it:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

And while this debate is likely to rage on for months (or maybe even years) here on this fair little blog, I remain convinced that the Founders' understanding of kings and law had already been shaped by centuries of European debate on the matter. Men like Locke, Sidney, Rutherford, etc. (along with many before and after them) helped to mold (and perhaps justify) the arguments for Revolution.

But again, it doesn't really matter because war was a' coming regardless of what the Bible said.

And that's a fact, Jack!