'The conservator, or guardian of both the tables of the law': the Collects for the King in the 1662 Communion Office
With these words John Shepherd - in his A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer, Volume II (1801) - turns to another distinctive provision in BCP 1662, the praying of the Collect for the King before the Collect of the Day. He notes how both of the Collects provided include petitions for the Sovereign's duty "to defend in the exercise of true religion":
In these Collects the subject of petition is nearly the same; but this distinction may be observed, that in the latter we pray exclusively for the King, while in the former we pray both for King and people, that is, for the whole Church. The petitions are grounded upon the assurance of the word of God, that "the heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord, and that as the rivers of water he turneth it whithersoever he will." To preserve internal tranquility, to protect us from foreign enemies, and to defend us in the exercise of true religion, is the object of the royal prerogative, for the stability and due regulation of which, it is the duty and interest of every good subject devoutly to pray.
Now this may cause some readers, both within and outside the United Kingdom, to understandably baulk. Is this not a declaration that the Collects for the King are inherently reactionary or - even worse - an appeal to heaven for an integralist political order? Are we not then to conclude that they represent part of the Anglican liturgical patrimony to be rejected, having no place in shaping contemporary Anglican political theologies?
I am going to suggest that this is not the case; that the Collects for the King, as understood by Shepherd, can continue to have a place in guiding and shaping contemporary Anglicanism, in our diverse constitutional contexts.
To begin with, it would be difficult to argue that this has been how thee Collects have been interpreted in what we might term an integralist fashion since the 'Constitutional Revolution' of 1828-32, by which the United Kingdom ceased to be in any meaningful sense a confessional state. Indeed, we might suggest that this was at least partly so since the Glorious Revolution, with the Toleration Act of 1689 and the presbyterian settlement in Scotland significantly (and rightly) revised the understanding of the Collects for the King. In other words, the praying of these Collects has long been regarded as compatible with significant constitutional changes which revised, altered, and then undid any notion of a confessional state.
In what sense, however, can Shepherd's interpretation of these Collects - that they are based on an understanding of the civil magistrate as "the conservator, or guardian of both the tables of the law, of religion, and of morals" - continue to have relevance?
Regarding the second table of the Commandments, the moral law, these Collects can be understood as praying for the chief magistrate to rightly and justly order the common life of the community in matters of war and peace, crime, marriage, domestic relationships, property, and labour. The obvious similarities between the Code of Hammurabi and the Commandments, particularly the second table, are ancient reminders that the magistrate's ability to rightly and justly order the common life of the community is clearly not dependent upon either Revelation or a Christian state (something most mainstream Christian theologies have acknowledged over centuries).
What is more, as extended debates within the Christian and Jewish traditions over centuries have made clear, discerning the meaning of the second table and the form it should take in communal life requires prudence and discernment, and is open to changing interpretations and contexts. The second table, therefore, might be regarded as an invitation to the civil community to engage in a parliamentary process, to debate and discern how this moral vision is applied for the well-being and the flourishing of the community.
In summary, the civil magistrate's role regarding the second table is no simple task of invoking the Commandments. Nor, indeed, is it even dependent upon recognising the Ten Commandments as divine revelation. The second table stands as a sign of the civil magistrate's duty to wisely and justly order and govern the common life of the community.
What, then, of the first table, what Shepherd terms "the exercise of true religion"? Religious freedom and liberty is no less a way of securing such exercise of true religion than, say, the legal mechanisms for the establishment of the Church of England in the 1660s. Indeed, we can confidently say that religious liberty is, in a significantly different cultural context, an eminently more appropriate, fitting, just, and worthy manner in which to secure "the exercise of true religion", free of the injustices and spiritual wrongs of coercion. The first table, therefore, now stands as a sign that on religious matters the civil magistrate must tread incredibly lightly, for the seriousness of true religion is beyond the capacity of the magistrate. So understood, the Collects for the King do not represent a reactionary commitment to a Christian, or Anglican, state but, rather, to a flourishing culture of religious liberty.
In other words, 21st century Anglicans and Episcopalians - living in a variety of constitutional orders - do not have to be embarrassed about the Collects for the King in the 1662 Communion Office. These Collects do not have to be banished from our thinking or condemned as hopelessly reactionary. They can, instead, represent a valuable and important historic expression of how, in the classical Anglican liturgy, Anglicans have - in light of the Commandments received by the Christian tradition - rightly prayed for the civil magistrate, reflecting on our duties towards them (and, yes, do think of this in the context of recent riots in the UK), and their duty to wisely and justly govern.
Comments
Post a Comment