This was the Royal Proclamation of King George III, issued on 2nd July 1784. Throughout the American War, days of prayer and fasting had been observed in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. The first fast day had been 13th December 1776. Joseph Butler - then Archdeacon of Surrey, to be appointed Bishop of Oxford in 1777 - preached before the House of Commons on that occasion. He emphasised that the rebellious colonists were not imitating the Revolution of 1688:
No man, who breathes the air of this country, and feels the benefit of it, would abruptly, or too severely, censure any exercise of Liberty. There was a time, when lawful Resistance was treated as a contradiction in terms. Thanks to some great Names, who have speculated upon the Rights of Mankind, and to some greater Worthies, who have struggled for them, we have discovered, that Resistance may not only be necessary, but that it may be lawful, that it may even be meritorious. I need not add, that the Discovery has produced and secured to us the Happiness, religious and civil, we enjoy. But Resistance to a legal Authority, exercising none but legal powers, for the attainment of legal purposes, is not one of the Privileges contended for in the last Century.
This passage from the sermon - preached before the House of Commons - clearly indicates that Butler did not regard the American War as a defence of a 'Throne and Altar' ancien regime. It was, rather, in defence of a constitution of ordered liberty, secured by the Glorious Revolution. Indeed, the object was "the Re-establishment of ... free government in British America", not 'Throne and Altar'.
Nearly 8 years later, after much blood and treasure had been expended, the American War was over. In early 1784, the various parties ratified the Treaty of Paris. It was following the ratification process that King George III issued the Royal Proclamation for a general thanksgiving, with directions to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England to "compose a form of prayer suitable to this occasion". 'A form of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God; to be used In all Churches and Chapels ... on Thursday, the Twenty-ninth of July, being the Day appointed by Proclamation for a General thanksgiving to Almighty God, for putting an End to the late bloody, extended, and expensive War in which we were engaged' was duly published.
The language used in the Royal Proclamation and in the title of the form of prayer appointed for the day - "the late bloody, extended, and expensive war" - was reflected in the sermons heard in parishes on the day. In Hemingford Grey, Huntingdonshire, Charles Dickens, the vicar, urged thanksgiving for "the present necessary and saving Peace". The parishioners of Greenwich Church heard their vicar, Andrew Burnaby, recognise the "dismemberment" of "this empire": "the judgement of Heaven seems to have visited us". But the peace now called for Britons to "esteem those, who were lately our enemies", and to turn minds to "Commerce ... the cement of all national friendship and alliance".
William Keate told his Dorsetshire parishioners that the end of the war was "essential to our existence":
To extricate us from this host of difficulties, Peace, tho' unfavourable, could not be unwelcome, could hardly be disadvantageous.
He also turned to a perhaps surprising source, a French Roman Catholic bishop, to urge acceptance of the Peace:
A pious and humane prelate among our late enemies, in his encomium upon the peace, which they at least, have no reason to condemn, has with great candour and liberality expressed his wishes, that the two rival nations of England and France, might preserve this amity inviolate, and hear of war no more. In these truly christian and patriotic sentiments, we concur most devoutly ...
The same sentiments were heard before the House of Commons. The preacher, George Pretyman - then a Prebendary of Westminster, to be appointed to the episcopate in 1787 - referred to the "unexampled" expense of this "complicated war". Cautiously, but clearly, he also voiced criticism of the policies which led to the war and which governed its conduct:
This is certainly not a place for calling in question the justice of the origin of that war which was the beginning of sorrows, nor for enquiring into the wisdom of those measures by which it was conducted ... But however men may differ now or hereafter in their sentiments respecting the cause and conduct of the war, they will all agree in deploring its disastrous consequences.
These are, of course, only a small sample of the sermons preached on that day. While more research would be necessary to come to a definitive conclusion, what is striking from this sample is the absence of any ideological interpretation of the American War. As with Butler's 1776 sermon, it clearly was not understood in these sermons as a necessary defence of an ancien regime against a rival ideological regime in the former colonies. In addition to the Peace being gratefully received as necessary for the interests of the Kingdom, little is offered in these sermons as a justification for the American War: indeed, such justification is significantly absent. There is no indication whatsoever that this was understood as a war fought in defence of 'Throne and Altar' against the ideas of infidel philosophes. What we see in these sermons is an understanding of the American War as an attempt to prevent the dismemberment of empire
The sermons provided a conventional affirmation and exposition of 18th century Anglican civil religion. According to Pretyman:
A concern for the prosperity of our country is perfectly compatible with the spirit and doctrine of our holy religion, the characteristic of which is universal Benevolence; it is a duty that becomes us as we are men, and as we are christians.
Likewise Burnaby:
what seems most essentially necessary to the re-establishment of our prosperity and happiness ... Religion will teach us to keep and observe this peace with sacred and inviolable truth and fidelity ... Religion will teach us to live in harmony and concord with each other, in observance of the laws, and in dutiful obedience to the King, and to all that are put in authority under him ... Religion will teach us ... universal love and benevolence, with every moral and Christian virtue.
Amidst these expressions of Anglican civil religion there is no sense that they were threatened by an ideology promoted by or embraced by the rebellious colonies. At no point in the sermons is Anglican civil religion regarded as ideologically threatened by the American cause or the outcome of the American War. This starkly contrasts with would be the case during fast day and thanksgiving sermons observed in the course of the conflict with Revolutionary France. Anglican civil religion, in other words, was not in any way engaged in an ideological struggle with the American cause.
Also characteristic of 18th century Anglican civil religion is how God is referenced in these sermons. Direct reference to Jesus Christ is rare. God is not described as the Trinity. Instead, the terminology of natural religion is used. This had been the case in Butler's 1776 sermon:
that Almighty Being ... divine Direction and Providence ... the mighty hand of God.
Pretyman's sermon before the Commons employed very similar terminology:
the hands of Providence ... the Almighty ... gracious Providence ... heavenly Benefactor.
It was also the case in Burnaby's sermon:
Almighty God ... the gracious Giver of all good things ... Infinite Wisdom ... God's gracious providence.
And with Keate's sermon:
our Creator and Preserver ... the arm of the Almighty ... the divine Providence.
What is more, the same natural religion terminology is also seen in the Royal Proclamation itself, quoted at the outset of this post:
Almighty God in his great goodness ... the Divine goodness ... a general thanksgiving to Almighty God ... the favour of Almighty God.
Here too there is no reference to Jesus Christ. There is no Trinitarian language. The Royal Proclamation, therefore, exemplified the discourse of Anglican civil religion.
Such language had a two-fold significance. Firstly, being the language of natural religion, it ensured that the Christian revelation was not being invoked in support of a particular political or constitutional order. While there is a fashionable Barthian tendency amongst 21st century Christians (both 'liberal' and 'conservative') to condemn and reject such language, the 18th century Anglican use of the terminology of natural religion provided a non-confessional discourse for civil religion, both within a polity and between polities. In doing so, it thus avoided the use of 'Throne and Altar' confessional discourse and aided in preventing conflicts becoming confessional struggles.
Secondly, natural religion language was also, of course, used - as commented upon in Monday's post - by George Washington. This again emphasises that interpreting such language for the Deity as evidence of 'theistic rationalism', in opposition to Christianity, utterly fails to recognise the context of 18th century Anglican civil religion, which routinely employed the terminology. (Indeed, if George Washington is deemed to be a 'theistic rationalist' because of his use, in proclamations, of natural religion language for God, the same could be said of George III!) That it reflected Enlightened ideas about civil religion does not at all contradict this. Enlightened thought in the Anglo-American world was not seen as somehow incompatible with but, rather, as cohering with Christianity. That Anglican civil religion used the terms of natural religion to refer to the Deity, rather than explicit confessional and dogmatic terms, aided in ensuring that the American War was not perceived by Britons and the Church of England as a crusade for 'Church and King'.
As Church of England clergy and parishioners left their parish churches on 28th July 1784, we have little reason to think that they regarded the American War as an ideological struggle for an ancien regime, or that they understood defeat to be an ideological victory for a former part of the Empire now animated by foreign ideological commitments. A war had been lost but it was understood in the same intellectual and political framework as the Seven Years' War. Then territories had been gained for the Empire. Now they had been lost. The war had not been a crusade for an Anglican 'Throne and Altar' vision: it was liberty, not 'Throne and Altar' absolutism, which defined the constitutional order established by the Revolution of 1688. The American War had been fought to secure the national interest against dismemberment of the Empire. It had brought division at home - and taxes. The state of the public finances appears to have been regularly referenced in the sermons of 29th July 1784: in his sermon, Pretyman referred to "the danger of public bankruptcy". This again emphasises the non-ideological understanding of the conflict. Now there was peace, welcomed by an Anglican civil religion that wisely understood the American War to be not a 'Church and King' crusade but merely a costly war of the Empire.
We are assembled, under the sanction of public authority, to return thanks to Almighty God for his having restored to us, after the late bloody and expensive war, the invaluable blessing of peace; that blessing, which we so frequently importuned, so fervently implored, and so humbly and devoutly supplicated in this place, during the continuance of the war. If we recollect the many unfavourable circumstances which attended our situation; if we consider the whole world was in a manner armed against us, and that destruction seemed to impend over us from every quarter; we shall readily and heartily join in this grateful and pious work: we shall, with unfeigned lips and undissembled hearts, offer up our praises and thanks to the gracious Giver of all good things, for this instance of his mercy and loving-kindness towards us.
Comments
Post a Comment