'That men of all sides should grow wiser and more temperate': was Burnet's sermon for 30th January 1681 prophetic?

Gilbert Burnet's sermon for 30th January 1681 is a fine example of how those termed 'Latitudinarians' could approach this commemoration of the Royal Martyr. The sermon was preached before the Aldermen of the City of London in St Lawrence Jewry, a Latitudinarian centre. The vicar at the time was Cambridge Platonist Benjamin Whichcote.

The phrase 'Royal Martyr' is a good place to begin consideration of the sermon. Burnet had no hesitation in referring to the "just esteem and veneration of this Royal Martyr" or to expressing "detestation of so unparalleled a wickedness ... the horridness of so unexempled a wickedness". Indeed, in the sermon Burnet pointed to that iconic statement of Royalist and Episcopalian devotion when considering the darkness of the 1640s, Eikon Basilike: "we have his character given us in such true and lasting colours, in that Picture which he drew for himself, in his solitudes and sufferings".

In other words, Latitudinarian 30th January sermons could share with High Church Tory sermons a devotion to the Royal Martyr. this is another example of how it is possible to significantly overstate the differences between the two church parties in their 30th January sermons. As previously noted on laudable Practice, the High Church Tory Jonathan Swift's sermon for 30th January was critical of the Personal Rule, noting the " unseasonable severities, and some unusual stretches of prerogative" of "the churchmen and royalists".

A good case can be made, therefore, that 30th January sermons, rather than examples of intense and divisive ecclesiastical partisanship, actually illustrate William Gibson's 'unity and accord' in the Church of England of the long 18th century. The critique of Enthusiasm was a considerable part of this 'unity and accord' in 30th January sermons. This was given powerful expression in Burnet's sermon:

the actors pretending to Enthusiasms, and inward directions for what they did, though it was clearly contrary both to the Laws of God and Man. That the person of our Prince is Sacred, and exempted from punishment, is a constant Maxim of our Government: which makes his ill Ministers and Councellors accountable for every thing that is done amiss. That the House of Commons cannot set up, by their single Authority, a Court to judge of the life of the meanest subject: that a force put on either House, though but a small part were violently excluded, makes it to be no more a House of Parliament; and that much more when the far greater part was secluded, they were certainly no House of Commons: That one House without the concurrence of the other, and the Royal assent joined to both, could not do any thing legally: and finally, That the Officers of the Army had no right to assume the Government into their hands; were all things so manifest according to the constitutions of this Kingdom, that they who acted so contrary to them, knew they could never justifie themselves by either Law or Precedent. It was necessary then to fly to somewhat, that should seem to be above all the limitations and restraints of Law: and that was to pretend secret directions from God. A Doctrine that overthrows the main and fundamental principle of the Reformation, which is, That in all things which relate to God, the Scriptures only are to be our Rule.

Against Enthusiasm stands the wisdom of Moderation, which Burnet invoked in the context of a favourite text of both the Cambridge Platonists (who deeply influenced Burnet) and of 18th century Anglicanism, James 3:17:

Oh! for more of that wisdom that is from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, and easie to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisie.

The circumstances of this day should dispose us all more to this happy temper. I cannot say the breach between the late blessed King and his Parliament, or the War that followed was begun or carried on meerly upon the account of Religion; but certainly the sourness that was on peoples tempers by reason of their differences in Religion, set it on much, and made it more lasting, and end more Tragically. Many were transported at first beyond their duties, by the extream way of carrying matters before the War, by some that were more zealous then prudent: and certainly things were driven much further in conclusion, than was at first intended by them that took up Arms. 

There is a fatal series in some distractions; one step not only makes way for another, but makes it in some sort necessary for their security that have gone too far. In the end all were losers, and the Nation was like to be ruined. Those of the Church not only lost all that they enjoyed, their Goods, and their Benefices and Dignities, but they lost him who was their Head on Earth, who was and still must be, one of the greatest Glories of this Church. Those of the separation were not gainers by it; a new party not thought of at first, rose up and took the game out of their hands: and when they had forced the Parliament, and killed the King, they entitled the rest to all they had done: and pretended they had gone on truly according to the principles upon which they had set out at first. And though they were gentler to these of the Division, than to those of the Church, yet they were to have been devoured at last, if a happy revolution had not taken the Nation out of their hands. Upon such a sad experiment, especially seconded with those dreadful hazards to which we see our selves now exposed, it might be expected that men of all sides should grow wiser and more temperate; and that many that are for the Church should abate of their stiffness, in things not Essential; and that they on the other hand, that insist on some indifferent matters, would consider things better without any heat and animosity ...

Now, yes, Burnet's urging of gracious reconciliation between Church and Dissent was characteristic of Latitudinarians, lacking the culture war calls of  'treacherous Dissent' by avid Church Tories on 30th January. But, as the rage of party settled with the accession of the Hanoverians, Burnet's more modest and measured approach to Dissent became the norm for 18th century Anglicanism - a mature realisation that a fervent hostility towards Dissent could itself become an Enthusiasm, abandoning the virtuous wisdom of Moderation.

There was also a deep wisdom in seeing in the 30th January observance - the commemoration of the Royal Martyr and the solemn recollection of the "unhappy confusions" of the Interregnum - a call that "that men of all sides should grow wiser and more temperate". The Enthusiasms, religious passions, and exalted claims which led to the bitterness of civil war, the execution of the monarch, and the military rule of the 1650s were, indeed, a clarion call for a "more temperate" political and theological discourse.

Towards the conclusion of the sermon, Burnet expresses a hope that, with the commemoration of 30th January encouraging "men of all sides [to] grow wiser and more temperate", the memory of the grimly dark days of the 1640s and 1650s might pass, replaced with "Queen Elizabeth days again" - words that would have made Hooker smile, as he looked down from the Celestial City:

That all the sad effects of that for which we now mourn shall be then entirely removed: that our days of Fasting shall be turned into solemn and chearful Feasts: then should our twenty ninth of May, swallow up the remembrance of the thirtieth of January: or perhaps as the Prophet foretold such happy deliverances should come to the Jews, as should make even that out of Egypt, be forgotten; so we might hope for such days as should out-shine and darken the very twenty ninth of May. Then might we hope to see Halcyon days, or, to speak in an English phrase, Queen Elizabeth days again.

Perhaps Burnet was prophetic: was this not what emerged under the reign of George III, with Church and State settled? Now, yes, admittedly there was to be a little local difficulty in British North America. The serious point, however, is that Burnet did indeed come to significantly influence Anglicanism throughout the 18th century, and much more - thankfully - than Sacheverell. His critique of Enthusiasm, his support for the principles of the Glorious Revolution, the wise generosity of his commentary on the Articles of Religion, and his recognition that Dissent was to be approached in the spirit of dialogue - rather than hostility - in order to urge conformity, all profoundly influenced 18th century Anglicanism for the better.  Anglicanism grew wiser and more temperate as a result of Burnet - a lesson well and wisely learnt from the "fatal and gloomy days" recalled on 30th January.