The Duty of Submission to Civil Authority,: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of Bradfield, Berkes, on Sunday, November 28, 1830, on Occasion of the Late Disturbances

In Short

This work is a printed sermon delivered in 1830 to a rural English congregation unsettled by local riots and social unrest. Using the biblical injunction to honor the king as a foundation, it argues that obedience to civil authority is a non-negotiable requirement for the faithful. By framing submission not as a political choice but as a religious imperative, the text provides a window into the reactionary religious climate of the Georgian era, offering historical insight into how faith was used to promote social stability during times of crisis.

The Story

The sermon opens during a period of "tumultuous proceedings" in the parish of Bradfield, where unrest has unsettled the local population. Addressing his congregation, the speaker acknowledges the presence of the King’s Proclamation—a formal government notice regarding the disturbances—affixed to the church door. His objective is clear: to counteract a rising "disorderly spirit" by anchoring his listeners in a strict interpretation of scriptural obedience. He begins by dismissing the notion that one can be a true Christian while simultaneously holding the civil magistrate in contempt.

The argument proceeds through two primary channels: the definition of the duty and the motive behind it. The speaker asserts that the command to "submit to every ordinance of man" applies to the king and his governors regardless of their personal character or the perceived justice of their rule. To illustrate this extreme position, he points to the early Christians living under Nero. Even under the authority of a tyrant who persecuted them, the Apostles continued to advocate for obedience rather than rebellion. The speaker uses this historical example to insist that if the early Church could submit to a pagan monster, then contemporary citizens living under a "just and righteous government" have no excuse for civil disobedience.

The text then addresses the inevitable dilemma: what should the faithful do if a secular law directly contradicts the law of God? Here, the speaker pivots to the biblical examples of Daniel and the three Hebrew youths in the fiery furnace. He argues that while they refused to obey the specific, impious commands of their kings, they never engaged in political sedition or armed resistance. Instead, they accepted the state's punishment—the lion’s den or the furnace—with quiet fortitude. Thus, the speaker defines the "right" form of submission: one should never obey an evil command, but one must always submit to the consequences of refusing it, rather than rising up to challenge the state's authority.

The sermon concludes by shifting from duty to motive. Obedience is not merely a means of maintaining public peace; it is a manifestation of love for the Savior. By refusing to cause chaos, the Christian protects the reputation of their faith, preventing critics from labeling Christianity as a source of anarchy. The speaker closes with an urgent warning to those harboring rebellious thoughts. He insists that their unrest is a symptom of a lack of true spiritual conversion. He implores the congregation to set aside the "artifices" of agitators, embrace the teachings of the Church, and accept that true strength lies in enduring hardship with the same patience exhibited by the martyrs, thereby securing a spiritual reward that far outweighs any temporal grievance.

How It Unfolds

The call to order The speaker identifies a decline in public morality and a dangerous indifference toward the office of the magistrate. He explicitly links recent local riots to a failure in the people’s understanding of their spiritual duties.

The definition of duty The sermon establishes that submission to civil authority is a comprehensive requirement that does not depend on the character of the ruler. This section clarifies that the "ordinance of man" is a divinely sanctioned structure that demands complete non-resistance.

The limits of compliance Using the examples of Daniel and the three Hebrew youths, the text delineates the boundary between obedience to God and obedience to the state. It explicitly rejects the idea of rebellion even when facing unjust or ungodly laws, advocating instead for passive suffering.

The motive of the faithful The argument shifts to the internal motivation of the believer, who submits "for the Lord's sake." The speaker argues that public order is a reflection of divine glory, and that the Christian’s behavior serves as a witness to the world.

The final exhortation The sermon ends with a direct address to those tempted by radicalism. The speaker warns that resisting the state is ultimately resisting God, and calls for a total internal renewal to ensure that the spirit of rebellion is purged from the heart.

The People

The Rev. J. F. Moor acts as the central voice, functioning as a moral arbiter who seeks to restore social order by redefining the congregation’s relationship to the state. He is driven by a profound fear of anarchy and a belief that the church is the primary bulwark against social chaos. The "Misguided People" are the invisible antagonists of the sermon; they represent the local rioters and those who listen to agitators. To the speaker, they are not merely political dissenters but individuals suffering from a fundamental, dangerous lack of spiritual depth. The Early Christians (and the Apostles) serve as the ideal models of conduct; they are the standard against which the present-day congregation is measured. Their willingness to face martyrdom rather than challenge the Roman state acts as a rhetorical cudgel used to shame any desire for modern protest. The Biblical Figures, specifically Daniel and the Three Hebrew Youths, are elevated as the ultimate examples of "non-resistance." They are the heroes of the narrative precisely because they possess the capacity to disobey a specific bad command while simultaneously yielding to the state's power to punish them, thereby avoiding the sin of rebellion.

In Its Own Voice

"A man cannot be a Christian indeed, who 'despises dominion, and speaketh evil of dignities.'"

The speaker argues that political defiance is fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of a true believer.

"If they are not now brought in the humility of faith to the cross of Jesus, and there taught by the renewing of your minds, that the yoke of his commandments is easy, and the burden of them light, when he comes... you will be 'punished with everlasting destruction.'"

The speaker warns the congregation that political disobedience has severe, eternal consequences for their souls.

What It's Really About

The central theme is the totalizing nature of religious duty, which the author argues must permeate every aspect of social life, including one’s political behavior. The work is an exercise in the rhetoric of stability; it posits that the authority of the king and the authority of God are inextricably linked. By stripping away the possibility of legitimate political dissent, the argument frames the state as an extension of divine order. The underlying question is whether a society can survive without a unified, submissive moral core. It is an exploration of the cost of order, demanding that the individual sacrifice their grievances and personal autonomy to preserve the structural integrity of the "spiritual Zion" he describes.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of English social unrest will find this a fascinating, if challenging, document of its time. It provides a stark look at how the established church functioned as a mechanism of control during the 1830s, particularly in response to the agricultural and labor disturbances of that era. There is a distinct, heavy-handed urgency to the writing that reveals the anxiety of the ruling classes, making it a valuable primary source for historians or those curious about the intersection of theology and state power.

However, modern readers should be prepared for its uncompromising tone and its period-specific interpretation of biblical texts, which may feel alien or even off-putting. The prose is dense with the formal, moralizing cadences of a nineteenth-century pulpit, and its dismissal of political protest as a form of "sin" reflects a worldview that is deeply hierarchical and profoundly reactionary. While the book lacks the nuance of modern political discourse, it excels at capturing the mindset of the era’s religious establishment. It is best read not as a timeless spiritual manual, but as a historical artifact that explains why and how religious language was used to suppress dissent during a period of massive societal change.