alexanderwillauer - Tumblr blog

[alexanderwillauer]

An American Revolutionary Loyalist's perspective of Luke 3:14

The American Revolutionary War is a conflict in which the combatants on both sides were predominantly Christian. Even Patriot Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, who identified as a Deist, largely read and interacted with the Christian Bible. Another aspect of the war is members of the clergy using passages from the Bible to uphold their own political ideals and denounce those of their rivals. A famous example of this is Romans 13:1-2 (KJV) “1. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established, the authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do will bring judgment on themselves.”

For those who wished to remain loyal to the King, this passage was explicit and literal. Disobedience against authority is disobedience to God. Theologians with Patriot political leanings interpreted this passage differently, instead they chose to oppose such a literal interpretation and weighed this passage against Colossians 3:20 (KJV) “20. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.” Patriots argued that it was commonly accepted across all Christian denominations that this command to obey no longer applies when the parent has gone mad or has commanded the child to knowingly commit acts of evil. In the end, they argue, everyone is accountable for their own soul. Patriots argued that the same exception should be applied to the Romans 13:1-2 verses. The more open interpretation of the verse has some historical precedence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his 1273 book Summa Theologica, argues “Tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not for the common good, but to the private good of the ruler. Consequently, there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind.”

Another good example of this theological debate between Loyalists and Patriots can be found in the main subject of this blog, The Christian Soldier’s Duty, by Rev. Charles Inglis. Inglis was the rector of Trinity Church in New York City during the American Revolution and is remembered for his opposition to the writings of Thomas Paine. This published work is a sermon he delivered in 1777. In it he examines Luke 3:14 (KJV) “And the soldiers likewise demanded of him – An what shall we do? And he said to them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, but be content with your wages.” The context of this passage is John the Baptist preaching the coming of Christ. The people gathered around him in different groups asking what they must do to prepare for the coming of the messiah.

Inglis tells his audience that John wished that “hostilities… would cease among Christian men, but alas! this is a blessing not to be looked for in the present times.” He writes that “evil will ever produce violence… and [makes] self-defense indispensably necessary.” Further he constructs a syllogism to justify his point, saying “The Creator wills the happiness of his creations… their happiness cannot be attained without society… [which] cannot be preserved without self-defense.” He ends his logic statement with the following conclusion, “I may affirm self-defense is agreeable to the will of the Deity.”

The rest of his sermon, after making the case that Luke 3:14 does not forbid soldiers from killing, he asks what then is the duty of a Christian soldier? Inglis argues that the main duty if a Soldier is to follow the commandments and obey authority, writing, “When a man becomes a soldier, he ceases not to be a Christian.” Therefore, “the duties and the principals of the Christian… he should keep in view.” He makes the argument that military discipline will aid in the swift conclusion of the conflict and so, “submission to… superiors… is an indispensable duty of the Christian Soldier.” Before finishing the sermon with the closing prayer he states, “[Honor] your king, as God hath commanded."

I do not believe that the Patriot theologians would have found much to disagree with about the first half of Rev Inglis’ sermon. Indeed, they too would have argued that, despite the wording, Luke 3:14 does not actually forbid a Soldier from killing, yet his conclusion that the Christian Soldier must obey the authority of the king I believe they would have major issues. What is striking to me is the logical inconsistency of the Loyalist theologians. They had adopted a more open interpretation of this passage when they condemned the Patriots for doing the same thing with Romans 13:1-2. I must conclude that no matter how deeply felt some people held their religious convictions, some were still willing to use them in a way that inappropriately substantiated their own worldly concerns.

Bibliography: Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1273. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Great Britian.: 1920. Edited by Thomas Gilby. OP. 60 vols, Cambridge.: Blackfriars. 1960/

Inglis, Charles. The Christian soldier's duty briefly delineated: in a sermon preached at King's-Bridge, September 7, 1777, before the American corps newly raised for His Majesty's service. New-York: Printed by H. Gaine, [1777]. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (accessed February 3, 2024). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CY0105505895/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=bookmark-SABN&xid=983d88d7&pg=1.

Mayhew, Jonathan. A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers. Boston.: D. Fowle in Queen Street; and D. Gookin the South- Meetinghouse. 1750.