‘What Would Jesus do in the Seventeenth Century?’ Archbishop William King of Ireland and Christian Humility.

‘What Would Jesus do in the Seventeenth Century?’

Archbishop William King of Ireland and Christian

Humility.

Raymond Michael Whelan

• Introduction • Historiography of Humility • King’s

Analysis of Humility • Pride • Happiness and Virtue •

Equality • Envy • Providence • Conclusion •

Introduction.

The theme of the Moving Forward Conference reflected the

ideal of impact or impasse, research beyond academia and

this discussion will highlight that theme in the

framework of a historical analysis of a work by a figure

who exemplified this premise. Archbishop William King

(16501–729) wished to bridge the gap between certain high

church ideas and implementing them into everyday life. In

a historical sense this reflected the central theme of

the conference as King attempted to profess an academic

idea and bring it to those who would not have access to

such discourses. This discussion will address the theme

of humility, examine King’s sermon and arrive at a

1

conclusion of impact or impasse in the sense of the time

to which King was writing.

Mark Button has recently remarked that humility was once

held as a cardinal virtue in the ethical life of the

individual; however it seemed to have suffered a steady

diminution in value over time. Recently philosophy has

shown a renewed interest in certain virtues but the

concept of humility has ‘…not enjoyed any similar

renaissance…’1 Button defined his theory of humility ‘…as

a cultivated sensitivity toward the incompleteness and

contingency of both one’s personal moral powers and

commitments, and of the particular forms, laws, and

institutions that structure one’s political and social

life with others.’2 This ideal of humility not only for

the individual but for the other and the community was

exemplified in William King’s essay on humility in 1705.

The full title of this discourse was, Christian Humility:

A Sermon preached before the Queen at St. James’s

1 Mark Button, ‘“A Monkish Kind of Virtue”? For and Against Humility’, Political Theory, Vol. 33, no. 6 (Dec., 2005), p. 840.2 Ibid, p. 841.

2

Chappel, on Palm-Sunday, 1705. By the most Reverend

Father in God William Ld Archbishop of Dublin. This

Sermon was published by Her Majesties Especial Command in

London in 1705 and was printed for Jonah Bower, at the

rose in Ludgate-street, near the West End of St. Pauls.

King’s analysis of humility can be described as a

temperance of one’s superior abilities and attributes in

order to humble one’s self to others and thus be esteemed

in the eyes of God. He focused on lowliness of mind,

pride, happiness, envy, goodness, reason, duty and above

all else the imitation of the Christ

Historiography of humility

There is little doubt that Christian morality was

influenced by early philosophical traditions and it was

the task of many writers of Christian morality to attempt

to formulate a way of living such that would be

acceptable to God and ultimately contribute to salvation.

According to R. E. O. White, Christian ethics began in

the early church through the writings of Paul and Luke,

3

however once one discovers Peter then the theme of

subordination to God became primary.3

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) traces a real life account

of humility in his Confessions which has influenced

scholars throughout the ages, and has been called the ‘…

great model of medieval piety.’4 St. Benedict (480–547)

theorised the twelve degrees of humility which was a

moral guidance for monks outlined in his Benedict’s Rule5,

however this was a more strict adherence to humbleness in

contrast to King’s version, since it was meant

exclusively for monks, while King’s theory was more

universal. St Bernard of Clairvaux (10901–153)6 postulated

his Twelve Steps of Humility7 which was an extreme form of

submission and belief in ones own inferiority.

3 R. E. O. White, Christian Ethics, Part one, Biblical ethics (Georgia, 1994), p. 188.4 Julius Schweitering, ‘The Origins of the Medieval Humility Formula’, PMLA, Vol. 69, no. 5 (Dec., 1954), p. 1279. 5 St Benedict, The Rule of St Benedict in English (ed) Timothy Fry, et al (Minnesota, 1981). 6 David Berger, ‘The Attitude of St Bernard of Clairvaux towards the Jews’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. 40 (1972), p. 89. 7 St Benedict, The Rule of St Benedict in English, ch. 7.

4

According to Matthew Levering, St Thomas Aquinas (1225–

1274)8 held a theory of humility where he focused on

Christ as the ‘door’ described in John 10:7, which was

written in Aquinas’s Commentary on the Gospel of St. John9.

Levering asserted that Aquinas explained the door as

follows, ‘Now the purpose of a door is to conduct one

into the inner rooms of a house; and this is fitting to

Christ, for one must enter into the secrets of God

through him.’10 Aquinas’s theology was concerned with

analogy which was one of King’s main doctrines so perhaps

a certain Thomist approach can be seen in some of King’s

theories.11 According to Jean Luc Marion the Thomist views

from the Thirteenth Century remained prominent through to

the Seventeenth Century and beyond. This happened for a

plethora of reasons including the renewal of the

Thomistic school, primarily by the efforts of Jean

8 Anthony Kenny, Aquinas (Oxford, 1980). 9 Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, trans. James A. Weisheipl and Fabian R. Larcher (Petersham, 1999), no 1377, p.119.10 Matthew Levering, ‘Augustine and Aquinas on the Good Shepherd: The Value of Exegetical Tradition’, in Ed Michael Dauphinais et al, Aquinas the Augustinian (Washington, 2007), p. 227.11 For a discussion on the analogy of Aquinas see, Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas (Cambridge, 1993).

5

Capreolus (1380–1444),12 and most notably Cardinal Thomas

de Vio (1469–1534)13.

These Thomist Scholars widely influenced university and

ecclesiastical life. Thomist ideals were also circulated

in the works of Jesuit Theologians such as Benedictus

Pererius (1535–1610), Gabriel Vasquez (1551–1604) and

Francisco Suarez (1548–1617)14, who enjoyed a lasting

circulation throughout both Catholic and Protestant

Europe.15 A certain Thomist ideal can be seen to be

present in King’s sermon, as shall be explored later,

because it was such a widely consulted idea base, so much

so that Descartes, who was a former student himself of

the Jesuit school of La Fleche, stated that the only

books he carried on his travels were the bible and copy

of the Summa.16

12 Jean Capreolus, On the Virtues, translated by Kevin White and Romanus Cessario (Washington, 2001).13 Catholic Encyclopaedia (http://www.newadvent.org), (18 March 2011). 14 Suarez was chosen by Melanchton to serve as a basis for the philosophical teaching in the Lutheran universities. Jean Luc Marion,On the Ego and on God Further Carthesian Questions ( New York, 2007), p. 253. 15 Jean Luc Marion, On the Ego and on God Further Carthesian Questions, p. 162.16 Ibid.

6

More recently the Christian Theologian, Hans Urs von

Balthasar (1905–1988)17 has outlined Nine Propositions on

Christian Ethics which still echoes the central ideals

present in King’s thesis, namely that, ‘Christ is the

concrete categorical imperative. He is the Formally

universal norm of ethical action, applicable to

everyone.’18 It seemed that outlining points to illustrate

humility was a common tool used in the methodology by

scholars who sought to administer an account of the

central idea.

King’s Analysis of Humility

Such as Bonhoeffer 19did in 1944, by asking ‘who is Jesus

Christ for us today?20, so did William King do, in his

Sermon on Humility. The second Commandment according to

Jesus was that one must love their neighbour as yourself

and this had variations in each of the first three

17 John O Donell, ‘Hans Urs von Balthasar Outstanding Christian Thinkers Series’, The Journal of Religion, vol. 74, no. 2 (April, 1994), p.266. 18 Graham Harrison, Principles of Christian Morality (San Francisco, 1986), p. 79. 19 Dietrich Banhoeffer (1906–45), Joel Lawrence, Bonhoeffer: A Guide for the Perplexed (London, 2010).20 Joel Lawrence, Bonhoeffer: A Guide for the Perplexed, p. 11.

7

gospels, Mark 12:28-34, Matthew 22:34-40 and Luke 10:25-

28. This idea could be said to have come from Hebrew

scripture in Leviticus 19:18.21 Taking this as the

starting point of a discourse on humility the

christiocentric nature of King’s argument can be

understood and King as in true clerical fashion began

this Sermon with a scripture reference mentioning the

Saviour and the imitation of Christ was enough to teach

us all Christian Graces. From the outset this illustrated

a Christological centred methodology. Although certain

aspects of the humility that King claimed to be possessed

by Christ, such as the death on the cross, were to be

admired rather than imitated, King asserted a very New

Testament ideal of God differing starkly from the ideal

of the vengeful Old Testament God which was popular in

the 1640s and 1650s in Ireland. King sought to give five

principle branches of Humility, and he asserted them as

follows;

1. ‘It implies a right Understanding of our selves and

Performances. This is included in the very Notion of

21 Ibid, p. 1.

8

Lowliness of Mind, and is very proper to make us

little in our own Eyes.’22

This could be said to be a prescriptive notion by King to

ask the reader to analyse their own actions and assess

whether there was a correct comprehension of themselves

in relation to their own actions. This meant that King

was putting forward the notion that Christian humility

when taken in relation to Christ, was a way of living

that related us to Christ and gave man a high degree of

self worth. Today we can see this ideal prevalent with

the popular armbands WWJD, what would Jesus do? This idea

originated in Holland Michigan some years ago but showed

a parallel with Christian Humility.23

This first point by King could also indicate a

philosophical hierarchical introduction to the central

subject matter of humility, King first mentions the

individual, the self and how one views the self in their

own eyes, then the other, then all society, followed by

all things and finally God. The first point regarding the

22 William King, ‘Christian Humility. A Sermon Preached before the Queen at St. James’s Chappel on Palm Sunday, 1705 (London, 1705), 2. 23 Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus An Inclusive Approach to New Testamnet Ethics (Michigan, 2007), p. 75.

9

individual can be construed as a very Cartesian notion as

in Descartes’ Cogito, our own recognition that we think

was enough to facilitate our existence and King alluded

to this by asserting that our perceived notion of

ourselves directly related to the moral worth of the

self.

According to John J. Blom, Descartes, like the ancients

insisted that all goods other than virtue remain goods

for us only if sustained by virtue. It is virtue that

alerts us to the conditions of life and reminded us that

in respect to most goods, we have title only for a time

to the fruits of their use. Blom explained that Descartes

regarded youth, wealth, position and fame as ideas that

virtue prepared us to give up, when we cannot have them

or cannot rightly have them. By mitigating the fear of

loss, virtue at once takes away the dread of acquiring

goods and facilitates us to enjoy them when we have them

and also prevents us from becoming sad for having had

them. 24

24 John J Blom, Descartes His Moral Philosophy and Psychology (Sussex, 1978), p. 37.

10

2. ‘A due Value and Esteem for other persons and Things: Let each

esteem other better than themselves’25.

King moved from the self to the other and retained the

theme of the Scriptural Christ humility in that the self

ought to esteem the other as greater than oneself. The

notion of the other did not become widely popular to

discuss until Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)26

and later with Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (1859–

1938).27 King showed a definite Lockean influence by

mentioning things and value, the property of the other.

‘To put it in other words, and to put it rather starkly,

a Christian spirituality that is entirely inward-looking,

concerned with the individual alone, spiritual in the

narrow sense, or entirely upward looking focusing solely

on God in all his majesty, is inadequate. It must also be

outward looking, concerned with the neighbour, if it is

to be complete.’28

25 William King, ‘Christian Humility. A Sermon Preached before the Queen at St. James’s Chappel on Palm Sunday, 1705, p. 2. 26 Martin J. de Nys, Philosophy and Theology: Hegel and Theology (London, 2009).27 Edmund Ricur, et al, Key to Husserl’s Ideas I (Milwaukee, 1996).28 Joel Lawrence, Bonhoeffer: A Guide for the Perplexed, p. 3.

11

3. ‘A due Concern and Care for the Common Good Look not

every Man on his own Things, but every man all on the things of

others.’29

In the third part King mentioned society, the common

good and the Lockean notion of collective security. King

retained the humility of the notion by using the Lockean

example that it is one’s own best interest to look out

for others and their property.

4. ‘A ready Condescention to all things, we apprehend to

be our Duty, according to the Example of Christ, who

having taken on him the Form of a Servant humbeled himself,

and became obedient unto Death, and so Declin’d no function

proper to his Station.’30

King moved on to duty and reason but kept the mood in a

religious state by according duty and the action of duty

to be comprehended in relation to Christ. King used terms

such as humbleness, obedience and servitude thus likening

the duty of man in relation to God as that of a servant,

obedient until death and who performed all actions

29 William King, ‘Christian Humility. A Sermon Preached before the Queen at St. James’s Chappel on Palm Sunday, 1705, p. 2.30 Ibid.

12

associated with this role. This related man directly to

God and so attributed humility a divine purpose.

5. A contenting ourselves with that Portion, or state on,

that God and Nature has assign’d us, in Imitation of

Christ, who tho’ equal with God, yet being, foun[d] in

fashion as a Man, did not repine at the severe porti[]

on allotted him by Providence.’31

Providence is a theme that King discussed at length else

where in his writings such as in De Origine Mali (1703) and

Sermon on Divine Fore-Knowledge and Predestination Consistent with the

Freedom of Man’s Will (1709) and it culminated the five points

by addressing God and the imitation of the saviour.

After the listing of these five points King went on to

explain in depth why each of these were relevant in

relation to Christian humility, he wished to relate the

Christ to man and give a prescriptive account of how man

ought to act. This moral guidance that King asserts can

be said to be a form of Deontological Ethics, and has

semblances of the Divine Command Theory.32

31 Ibid. 32 For a discussion of this see Paul Rooney, Divine Command Morality (Vermont, 1996).

13

King explained the first point as Lowliness of Mind ‘…is,

to have a modest and mean Opinion of our selves; of our

Temporal and Spiritual Goods; of our Natural and Acquired

Advantages: For whoever has too great a Value for

Himself, for his Parts or Perfections, comes short of

that Humility, that Entitles us to the Kingdom of Heaven,

and certainly loses the benefit of whatever he over-

rates.’33 King asserted that the man who esteemed himself

with having a high opinion of himself, as in esteeming

oneself as to be greater than another is contrary to his

own humility and ultimately showed him to be deficient in

relation to the opinion that God would have of him. The

Divine Command theory was present here as King delineated

that the moral guidance comes from Christ and his example

of humility in Scripture.

According to R. E. O. White, ‘The imitation of Christ is,

in truth, the nearest principle in Christianity to a

moral absolute.’, and ‘The imitation of Christ remains

33 William King, ‘Christian Humility. A Sermon Preached before the Queen at St. James’s Chappel on Palm Sunday, 1705, p. 3.

14

the heart of the Christian ethic.’34 This ideal was

exemplified in King’s Sermon on Christian Humility. While

a lot of the text of the Sermon reads as prescriptive

absolutism, the philosophical subtext and inherent

subject matter illustrated King as a capable and

authoritative proponent of morality. King’s version of

this Christian morality differed from others that have

theorized before him. It can be argued that this notion

of humility was contrary to liberality and certainly

contrasted starkly with writers such as Machiavelli in The

Prince35, where success and ambition are good attributes to

possess.

The obvious difficulty with this, was a problem that King

subsequently addressed, ‘By what Means shall a Man of

Goodness and Parts, of Honour and Greatness, be so much a

Stranger to his own Worth, as to esteem others better than

himself?’36 So if a man possessed desirable attributes which

have been bestowed upon him by God, does that not make

34 R. E. O. White, Christian Ethics, Part one, Biblical ethics, p. 109.35 Nicollo Machiavelli, The Prince, translated with notes by George Bull; with an introduction by Anthony Grafton (London, 1999). 36 William King, ‘Christian Humility. A Sermon Preached before the Queen at St. James’s Chappel on Palm Sunday, 1705, p. 3.

15

him seem favourable to God in his own eyes and those who

do not possess these desirable traits might seem inferior

to him. It is right, King stressed for this man to be

humble to God but it may have an ill effect on him

towards others, as King empirically stated, experience

showed us that ‘…nothing is more apt to puff up a Man,

than an opinion of peculiar Favour; nor is any thing a

greater Temptation to insult our fellow Subjects…’37

So ultimately the right course of action was for a man

who is clearly better than another to esteem the other

greater than himself thus proving his humility by

imitating the saviour, this would be a more difficult way

of living but boosted ones humility, and thinking of ones

self as greater than the other is a contradiction to the

humility that all should strive to possess. So the

advantage we have over other men was this humility, and

King alluded to scripture to illustrate this point, in

Mark 10.42. King claimed that the example present here

showed that humility was the surest path to greatness,

37 Ibid.

16

and the finite physical world was naught in comparison to

eternal happiness.

King proposed numerous physical examples to stress his

point such as a rich man giving charity and how he valued

himself on the bounty of charity and the boasting of the

gift to make himself seem better which actually

counteracts his good deed and worked against his

humility. By this reasoning King stressed that ‘…if we

have no greater reason to value our selves, than the

pleasing others, it is a plain demonstration that we

depend upon their good Opinion more than our own Merit,

and consequently confess our own Defects…’38

Pride

The notion of pride was also discussed in the Sermon.

Pride was, according to King, a contradiction of itself

and forced man to prefer himself to others and man needed

and expected advantages by pleasing others. This was

another consideration that supposedly contributed to

lessen the esteem of ones self by virtue of the alleged

advantages one may have over another, which are bestowed38 Ibid, p. 6.

17

for their sake rather than our own and can often be

negative traits to possess.39 Pride also arises ‘…from a

False notion of our selves and Affairs; but understanding

them aright, is a certain Ground-work and Means of

Humility’.40

The notion of pride in relation to Christ has been

discussed by R. F. Egan, he stated that humility was

contrary to pride and was not the desire of elevation, or

the greatest elevation but was, what he referred to as,

the wrong elevation. Egan quoted Augustine as deeming

pride, ‘…the desire of a wrong elevation…if a man should

abandon the true foundation on which he should rest and

seek in some sense to be his own origin and foundation.’41

This was a similar notion to that of King as the desire

of a wrong elevation can be equated to King’s undesirable

traits to possess, so it could be said that there was a

certain Augustinian influence present. Augustine

considered that human pride was the root of all sin, as

39 Ibid, p. 6-7.40 Ibid, p. 10. 41 R. F. Egan, ‘The Humility of Christ’, The Irish Monthly, Vol.64, No. 755 (May, 1936), p.326.

18

in City of God he stated ‘…What is pride… but an appetite for

inordinate exaltation? Now, exaltation is inordinate when

the soul cuts itself off from the very Source to which it

should keep close and somehow makes itself and becomes an

end to itself.’42 According to J. Philip Wogaman,

Augustine grounds Christian ethics in the moral will, ‘…a

will directed by its love for God is good, while a will

directed by love of self and lesser goods is evil.’43

Happiness and Virtue

Eudaimonia and Arte are central to Greek moral philosophy

and translate loosely as happiness and virtue

respectively. King critiqued the notion of Happiness, and

used the ideal of the Stoics rather than the Aristotelian

model as seen in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Eudeimian

Ethics, where Aristotle decided that the likelihood of one

being Eudaimonic would be less if one did not possess

goods such as friends, wealth and power.44 The stoic

42 Augustine, City of God, xiv.4, trans. Gearld G. Walsh, et al (NewYork, 1958), p. 300–1.

43 J. Philip Wogaman, Christian Ethics A Historical Introduction (London, 1994), p. 53.44 See, Paula Gottlieb, The Virtue of Aristotle’s Ethics (Cambridge, 2009).

19

version of eudaimonia however does not equate exactly to

what King was describing in this portion of the argument.

Stoic’s differ slightly from Christain notions of

happiness, as the possession of happiness or eudaimonia

transcends external goods and circumstances and was

strictly concerned with moral virtue with everything else

such as health, wealth and honour are neutral. The Stoics

considered happiness as the ‘…freedom from all suffering

and anxiety.’45

King’s assertion was that happiness was universal and

accessible to all regardless of rich or poor, weak or

strong and wise or ignorant and advancing one’s own

happiness did not depend on gaining attributes, wealth or

circumstances perhaps contrary to Aristotle’s assertions.

Aristotle considered happiness, as part of the final good

for man46, or the activity of the soul in accordance with

virtue or more than one virtue.47 The importance of

happiness in Augustine’s ethics can scarcely be

45 Bonnie Kent, ‘Augustine’s Ethics’, in ed, Elenor Stump, Norman Kretzmann, the Cambridge Companion to Augustine (Cambridge, 2001), p. 209. 46 W. F. R. Hardie, Aristotle’s Ethical theory (Oxford, 1968), p. 12. 47 Ibid, p. 20.

20

overestimated. Although it has been noted that

Augustine’s works are inconsistent on the notion of

happiness, it is widely agreed that Augustine considered

that immortality was a requirement and that Jesus Christ

was the ultimate contingent for attaining happiness.

‘Jesus Christ the incarnation of God, as both the teacher

and redeemer without whom no human being could ever

succeed in attaining happiness.’48

Augustine declared Christ’s entire life on Earth a

splendid education in morals and he believed that we must

develop humility, ‘since we shall recognize that the best

elements in us we owe far more to God’s generosity than

to our own accomplishments, and that his will is simply

better and more important than our own.’49 King did

iterate that virtue and holiness did promote happiness

and that one person could have a greater amount of

content than another, if he had overcome an illness and

the other remained ill.50

Equality

48 Bonnie Kent, ‘Augustine’s Ethics’, in, Elenor Stump, Norman Kretzmann (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, p. 210. 49 Ibid, p. 217.50 William King, ‘Christian Humility. A Sermon Preached before the Queen at St. James’s Chappel on Palm Sunday, 1705, p. 8–9.

21

The equality of all persons was a theme that was central

to King’s thesis, ‘…let us remember, That tho they are

below us, yet they are made of the same Mould with us;

that we are all framed of the same Clay, and had the same

Spirit breathed into our Nostrils, and what ever

Perfections we may have above them, a mean Accident may

alter the Case, and place us below them. That in the

meanest Condition, there is no Obstacle to Goodness,

since that consists in the Mind; and a Man in the lowest

Circumstances imaginable, may have as good a Mind, as in

the highest.’51 So, if all men are equal then who decides

who is virtuous and moral, King states that, ‘The true

value of a Man, is to be taken from the Esteem that God

sets on him…’52

The value of someone cannot be taken from a sense

experience outside view of them, we can see in our selves

and are conscious of our own satisfactions and

perfections, but cannot know what exists in other persons

minds and thus a comparison with our self cannot be

51 Ibid, p. 10. 52 Ibid.

22

adequately made. However if a person be of decent

humility then God will have bestowed on him satisfaction

and so the moral worth of a person can be judged by this

esteem, but there was still no way of experiencing this

esteem.

King questioned whether goodness was a gift from god, as

well as health was? He stated that ‘…it will appear full

as absurd to be Proud, because we are more Virtuous than

another, as because we are more Healthy. Doth any Man

contemn his Neighbour, because he is faln into a Fever?’53

The nature of one is equal to another and all

disadvantages are but accidental and may be worn out and

thus they may ‘…outshine us…’54, and King used the

physical example of a diamond being polished and out

shining a crystal, and also St. Paul and St. Augustine

who were a persecutor and a Manichee respectively. King

called on the reader to not prefer oneself to one ‘…below

us, until we see their End, and be certain, what our own

may be.’55

53 Ibid, p. 11. 54 Ibid, p. 12.55 Ibid.

23

Envy

King in this Sermon also critiqued envy and the idea that

there was no place or reason for it in terms of humility.

Those who are above us, who are superior to us for

whatever reason are that way to serve us. King questioned

whether we could be envious of a guide because he knew

the way, when others did not, or a physician who cures

us, since they are using their advantages to serve us,

why should one envy others their good qualities, when

joined with humility will certainly be used to benefit

us. This was for King sufficient reasoning to make all

men equal and this was the central idea of a right

understanding and value of oneself and others.

There was nothing, according to King more fatal to a man

than to think himself too great for his duty or

circumstances. King gave the example of Christ again by

stating that he came and took the occupation of a servant

and diligently completed any task laid out by God no

matter how remedial, and this was the action that King

wished to prescribe to all.

Providence

24

Ultimately King equated all human endeavour as Providence

from God and for any to complain for their portion or

station, ‘…is in effect to find fault with God’s Disposal

of the World…’56 and those who are truly humble will

accept and hold regard for their portion and recognise

the that it is only through God that there is even

existence itself, and ‘…whose very Being is an Act of his

Free-will and Mercy.’57

King appealed to the reasonableness of the reader and

perhaps was attempting to give comfort to those who have

not had a great lot, by ascribing their misfortune to a

plan by God and the fact that if they act in accordance

with the humility mindset then this will count in their

favour in the next life. King equated humility to that of

a solider accepting a difficult task from his General,

and that it would be an honour to spend oneself for the

common good. The favourites of God for King are those

that are placed in most hardship, disadvantage and poor

circumstances.

56 Ibid, p. 19.57 Ibid.

25

In perhaps the most subservient statement of the entire

thesis King prescribed the action to adopt for humility,

‘Therefore the Poor in Spirit will not expect great

Matters for themselves, they will endure all things

rather than desire that God should go out of his usual

Methods of Providence to better their Condition. The Lowly

in Mind will reason thus with himself; What am I, that God

should break his Measures for me? Is my particular so

Considerable, that God should dispense with those Laws to

gratifie me, that support the World? Far be such a

thought from my Heart, a Worm, a nothing, such as I am,

cannot think my self of such Consideration. If it were

put to my choice, I would refer it back to God again, how

to dispose of me: let me be mean, let me be poor, let me

suffer or die, so the Will of God be done: I’m sure, the

fulfilling of that Will, must finally make me happy, and

let God chose in what Method he will lead me to the

Kingdom of Heaven.’58

58 Ibid, p. 20–1.

26

King ended the sermon with a reference to Matthew 5:5 and

the meek inheriting the earth, which was later criticized

by Nietzsche and referred to as the Christ slave

morality.59

Conclusion

King’s sermon on the outside seemed to be a typical

example of a clergy man warning his congregation of the

dangers of not acting the way that God wants one to act.

However upon closer analysis there are certain universal

philosophical qualities mentioned that separate the work

from a simple prescriptive doctrine on how to act taking

authority from scripture to prove the assertions. King

also does not seem to hold a distinction between the four

portrayals of Jesus in the canonical gospels. His entire

premise was based on an accepted notion of Jesus and the

way he treated all, sinners and believers alike, in the

same mantle and this ideal was sufficient for his subject

matter of the right way to live one’s life. King used

quotes from Mark, Job and Paul but did not over emphasize

59 See, Chapter 5 in, Brian Sinhababu and Neil Leiter, Nietzsche and Morality (Oxford, 2007).

27

their importance, instead keeping the importance on Jesus

and the imitation of him.

One criticism of the humility of imitating Jesus was that

Jesus lived in another time so his ideal must be out of

date now or indeed in 1703. R. E. O. White answered this

criticism by asserting that ‘…His ideal is expressed in a

personal character, and not a code of law or a

philosophic creed, that it has proved adaptable,

illuminating, relevant, in the changing circumstances of

different generations. Any formulation of ethical duty in

words of command, of wisdom, or of warning, must belong

to the age and thought-forms that produced it. A living

spirit, expressing a personal vision, faith, attitude,

quality and courage, defies exhaustive description or

formulae, and for that very reason may be analysed and

described afresh in each new age culture without

disloyalty to its inner truth.’60

In conclusion King’s Sermon was far from a through

account of humility, with so many ambiguities present,60 R. E. O. White, Christian Ethics, Part one, Biblical ethics, p. 117.

28

however it seemed the purpose of it was the betterment of

society, it was not a set of moral codes clearly defined,

but a reasonable attempt to show the lay person a

possible path to happiness. It was distinctly typical of

traditional church teachings with groundings in earlier

works by Christian theologians but was also clearly

influenced by others such as Descartes and Locke. The

Thomist ideal was present but it was amalgamated with

others ideas. In a time in Ireland and Britain of war,

instability and modernisation this sermon and others like

it were an attempt to give solace to those who had a hard

lot.

It was also a distinctly Protestant text with its

emphasis on scripture and not on adherence to Church

hierarchy although King was prescriptively preaching

notions from his position of a High Church man he still

maintained that the ideas were not coming from him but

from scripture and distinctly Christiocentric. The sermon

does seem to have the traditional priest on a pedestal

29

telling the masses to act in a certain way or face

punishment.

According to George Mead; ‘Every human individual must,

to behave ethically, integrate himself with the pattern

of organised social behaviour which, as reflected or

prehended in the structure of his self, makes him a self-

conscious personality. Wrong, evil, or sinful conduct on

the part of the individual runs counter to this pattern

of organized social behaviour which makes him, as a self,

what he is, just as right, good, or virtuous behaviour

accords with this pattern; and this fact is the basis of

the profound ethical feeling of conscience- of “ought”

and “ought not”- which we all have, in varying degrees,

respecting our conduct in given social situations. The

sense which the individual self has of his dependence

upon the organized society or social community to which

he belongs is the basis and origin, in short of his sense

of duty (and in general of his ethical consciousness);

and ethical and unethical behaviour which is socially

beneficial or conductive to the well being of society,

30

the latter as behaviour which is socially harmful or

conductive to the disruption of society.’61 This

explanation accords to individual selves in a society and

if one equates this to King’s notion of humility and

places the organized social behaviour as that of

mimicking Jesus’ humility then it is easier to understand

how this notion could be for the betterment of a

collection of individuals.

So having examined King’s account and placed it in a

historical context, it can be inferred that King did make

a conscious effort to bring elevated ideas to the masses,

to those that would not perhaps have access to these

ideas in their everyday lives. There was little doubt

that this sermon would have had an impact, it was a

sermon by the highest ranking Church of Ireland clergyman

in Ireland, and being in such an elevated position

brought criticism from most other variations of

Christianity. King did retain the authoritative overtone

of his position and through his analysis and

61 George H. Mead, Mind Self and Society, from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist (ed) Charles W. Morris (Chicago, 1934), p. 320–1.

31

prescription, perhaps, transcends an impasse. If the true

way of acting in society was to attempt to imitate

Christ, then it can be argued that there can be no

impasse as this was an end in itself. If one acts in

accordance with the actions and teaching of Christ then

the end reward justified any individual’s life, according

to King.

32