"It is a religious duty": the persistence of Old High Church political theology
Wordsworth's 1841 Accession Day service offers an example of the post-1833 persistence of Old High Church political theology. At the outset of the sermon, Wordsworth invoked a classical Old High Church conviction - the polity cannot be separated from religion:
Our civil duties are never so well understood, and therefore never so well discharged, as when they are considered in close communion and intimate connexion with our religious ones. We cannot feel and act as we ought towards man, until we feel and act as we ought towards God.
This led to a traditional theological - as opposed to a solely pragmatic - account of allegiance:
of Him whose subjects Princes are, of Him, from whom they derive their power, as his Delegates and Vicegerents upon earth. It is only by understanding rightly the nature of the monarchy of God, that we can justly comprehend that of the monarchy of Man ... For what are the monarchs of the earth? and why do they claim our allegiance? Because they are appointed by God, and because they are the Deputies of God. Other grounds might indeed be alleged for this claim, such, as the necessity of a settled government; such again, as the benefit which is found to result from the monarchical form of it: and more arguments of a similar nature might be adduced, and also might prove satisfactory to the judgments of some; but when tried, they would be found to rest on an insecure foundation. They are indeed not to be neglected, as accessory and subsidiary to the former, but they are not sufficient for our purpose.
Here was a proclamation of sacral monarchy:
... not merely are kings appointed by Him, but they are also his representatives, they are images of God, images of Him in those his attributes, which constitute the very essence of Deity; they are images of Him in his supremacy, in his power, in his judicial character of dispensing rewards and punishments, - for they are “the ministers of God to thee for good,” — images of Him, in a certain sense, by the hereditary devolution of their sway, in his very eternity. What God is to them, and what man is to the rest of the creation, this they are to man himself.
Wordsworth reasserted the religious grounds of civic allegiance:
To deny due honour to the king, is to rob not him, but God. Therefore, let us not suppose that true loyalty is an act or habit of mere civil obedience, it is a religious duty. Let us not imagine, that it is a determination of the intellect, it is a Christian grace. Let us not conceive that it springs from earth, it descends from heaven.
He also set forth the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance:
It is, then, on the grounds here stated, of their possessing the character of ministers and representatives of Almighty God, that kings are entitled to the allegiance of their subjects; and further, it is on this ground, that nothing can discharge their subjects from the duty of civil allegiance to them. Kings are responsible to Him whose officers and deputies they are, and not to man ... The personal character of a ruler is not a question for the censorship of his subjects. His treatment of them, however harsh it may be, ought never to provoke them to injure themselves by casting off their loyalty to him. It is never safe to disobey; except when the injunction is in direct opposition to the command of God. The representative of God who orders any thing against the order of God, ceases to be God's representative: his claims, therefore, to obedience, in this particular respect, but not in others, cease. But even in this case, it is a sin to rebel. A Christian knows of no arms against kings but prayers. It would also be a sin to disobey the civil commands of such an authority.
Nearly a decade after the dismantling of the bulwarks of the Anglican constitution, the sermon's conclusion clearly indicates that the anxieties of High Churchmen tradition during the events of 1828-32 did not overwhelm a traditional political theology:
let us, as in duty bound, return hearty thanks to Almighty God , who has made us subjects in an ancient and illustrious monarchy, where the sovereigns plight their troth by solemn sanctions, that they will maintain the Christian Faith in its purest form; and let us devoutly pray to God, that all his mercies, temporal and eternal, may be poured on the anointed head of our most gracious Queen.
There are not insignificant contrasts between this sermon by the Tory Wordsworth and the state sermons of the Whig Jacobson. Jacobson's account of monarchy and allegiance lacks the 'high flying' character of Wordsworth and, indeed, better reflects the nuances of late 18th century statements of High Church statements political thought. That said, Wordsworth's sermon has the character of the Tory parson observing the horror of the Revolution in France and recognising the need for something stronger than appeals to the utility of constitutional order.
Taken together, however, they do illustrate the vitality of the Old High Church tradition's political theology in the post-Reform era and the rejection of early Tractarian invocations of the sectarian retreat of the Nonjurors. As such, these sermons have a contemporary relevance. They offer a vision of the polity ordered by justice and righteousness, essential to human flourishing, rather than withdrawal into an ecclesial safe-zone, abandoning the polity to utilitarianism, capital, and ambition.
------------------
Postscript
It is worth noting Wordsworth's words to a Conservative meeting in Reading in 1865 as an indication of the persistence of a Tory High Church political theology:
What, gentlemen, is Conservatism? It is the application of Christianity to civil government. And what is English Conservatism? It is the adoption of the principles of the Church of England as the groundwork of legislation. Gentlemen, I say it with reverence, the most Conservative book in the world is the Bible, and the next most Conservative book in the world is the Book of Common Prayer.
(Quoted in Owen Chadwick, The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century.)
Comments
Post a Comment