Loyalty, Identity, and Authority:
An Analysis of Thomas Foxcroft’s Sermon
on the Accession of King George II (1727).
Rarely in the history of the British Empire has the death of a King served to reassure. In in
early July of 1727, however, Boston’s Old Church minister Thomas Foxcroft delivered a sermon
before the Bay Colony’s Assembly and Royal Governor designed to do just that. The Sermon,
delivered following the arrival of news of King George I’s death and the impending accession to
the throne of George II, is a unique document of religious origin delivered to a political body.
Certainly this was not unique considering the traditional interplay between New England’s
political and religious culture. Foxcroft’s sermon, while comfortably fitted within this tradition,
provides a much deeper contextual understanding of the fears and hopes of New Englanders as
they received the news of a beloved monarch’s passing. It eulogizes the late King and anticipates
promise for his successor, but also illustrates the way in which they interpreted their own
position within the evolving empire. This interpretation, carrying religious as well as political
meanings for the region, offers fascinating provincial notions of Loyalty, Identity, and Authority
as understood in New England at the time.
Foxcroft’s sermon, titled God the Judge, Putting down One, and Setting up Another was
based out of the Biblical book of Psalms. The particular verses on which the sermon focuses
cover King David and his succession to the throne of Israel. Foxcroft was able to make numerous
comparisons between the situation of King David, assuming the throne of Israel through divine
intervention, and the situation facing the British Empire as it replaced the popular King George.
A primary focus of the sermon is the concept of Loyalty. Foxcroft’s masterful usage of this
theme, however, carries with it both political and religious meanings. Considering the political
nature of his audience, including the Royal Governor William Dummer, his focus on Loyalty is
logical. Politically speaking, loyalty to continued succession of the house of Hanover under
George II originated with several motivations. Foxcroft, as well as the rest of the assembled
political leaders, knew that only through loyalty to the new king could the colony ward off
changes to their Charter rights and position. This had been accomplished only too easily under
the Stuarts and their hated provincial representative, Governor Andros. Massachusetts knew
most of the traditional governing structure, as well as the “civil liberties and privileges” that
colonists enjoyed, were subject to the royal prerogative.
More directly, it was also necessary to demonstrate that loyalty in the presence of
Governor Dummer who was in attendance. The Governor, as the king’s direct authority in the
colony, was likely sounding out the reaction among the local elites; likely reporting his opinions
of the colonists regarding the late King’s death and his son’s succession. The lengthy
introduction addressed directly to the Governor was both a show of submission and respect for
his office, as well as the authority from which it originated.
Moreover, demonstrated loyalty now might serve the colonists’ interests in numerous other
ways. After William III had been crowned, Cotton Mather and other leaders from New England
had successfully reversed some of the political changes detrimental to the region’s traditional
Puritan leadership; having reinstated the assembly, reversed some limitations on land quitrent
requirements, and restored some charter rights that had been revoked under Andros. A timely
demonstration of complete support now could lead to an even better settlement with the new
monarch; perhaps something more reminiscent of the original colonial charter. In fact, issues
such as property rights had continued to be of chief concern to the colonists. As towns grew
more dense, population pressures forced increasing numbers of settlers into Native American
lands. Only with royal support would land claims in these areas be upheld. Only the defense of
the King could protect the colonists from Indian reprisals and raids.
In addition to the land issues, though by no means of secondary importance, many of the
older generation looked upon the new imperial position of New England with some regret for the
lost prestige and power of the Puritan founders. Although this structural power had been undone
with the Dominion of New England, established as yet another limitation on the colonists in an
effort to bring the region under more direct imperial control, many felt that the new position
afforded the colonies little sense of place in the empire as British subjects. Some scholars have
asserted, as Foxcroft himself insinuates, that many in New England simply desired a greater
sense of continuity between the old charter relationship to the crown and the new
“Cosmopolitan” relationship after the Glorious Revolution.
Whatever the political desires behind Foxcroft’s repeated claims of loyalty, many would
certainly have agreed with him that King George I had earned that loyalty. George had defended
the colonists’ rights by upholding the new charter agreements reached under Queen Anne. A
more aggressive monarch could have asserted his own royal rights relatively easily with an
encroachment upon far-away imperial provinces without drawing the ire of elites back at home.
However, either from disinterest or, as historian Brendon McConville argues, from a tentative
grasp of the limitations of his newly bestowed power, George I refused this needless restriction
on the colonies. Foxcroft praised George I for “upholding the civil liberties of his happy
subjects.”
Of course, the gentle political power exerted by George I was not his only trait that
commanded colonial loyalty. New England, possessed of the belief in a sure connection between
the source of political and religious power, saw itself defended in matters of religion by the
Protestant German kings. Since the overthrow of the Catholic Stuart king, and the successful
invasion by William and his Stuart wife, Mary, the empire had embraced the reestablishment of a
Protestant monarchy. In fact, the succession to the throne of the Hanoverian line was solely
dependent on their “true Protestant Faith.” Foxcroft reminded his audience that King George had
successfully defended the “Protestant Interest” against all Catholic usurpers, as well as the exiled
Stuarts; still lurking in France.
McConville asserts that notions of identity and loyalty among provincial British subjects,
especially in New England, can be traced to the fusion of ideas of empire and the Protestant
Interest. Already possessed of a tradition that blended the religious and secular, it was no stretch
for the colonists to imagine their civil and religious rights as inseparable. In fact, in numerous
passages Foxcroft asserts precisely that point, arguing that “Surely our civil privileges cannot
long survive the Popish mastery of our British Nation”. Later he takes the idea even further
saying, “loyalty to the King is loyalty to God.”
The concepts of a Protestant Empire, though possibly exaggerated in the colonial mind,
are logical from that view point for several reasons. It was, after all, under the covert- Catholic
James II that many of the civil liberties enjoyed by New Englanders had been curtailed. In this
light, then, Foxcroft’s labeling of Popish power as “arbitrary” seems somewhat substantiated. In
addition, recurrent fears of French attempts to advance a “universal monarchy” under Papal
leadership made British subjects more aware of their own Protestant empire as an opposing
world force. With great fervor, Foxcroft underlined this idea with his reassurance to the deceased
George I that “ the world Protestant Interest salutes you.”
To be sure, religious concerns were a primary motive for the selection of the Hanoverian
line for the British throne. However, the recurring penchant among North Americans, and
especially New Englanders, to confuse the British common law governing structure with ideas of
higher divine law has led recent scholars to reconsider the success of the British government in
fostering understanding of the royal transition.
While it is true that establishing a connection between their religious interests and the
political changes in the empire were important symbols of continuity for New Englanders, it was
not necessarily a view shared in other quarters. Foxcroft claimed with perfect sincerity that God
was responsible for the Glorious Revolution and all of its monumental consequences. This
concept, though complimentary to provincial sensibilities, created systemic problems in the
colonial perception of royal authority within the empire.
Foxcroft’s intense praise of George I, and his entirely optimistic estimation of the incoming
George II, illustrated an intense commitment to the monarch. This was not solely based on
prospects of opportunism for colonial interests. In fact, by the early 1700s most colonists had
developed an errant concept of royal authority in the colonies. This concept matured into a belief
that the colonies were subject exclusively to royal power. This was partially based on the original
charters of New England, which admittedly had been made personally with the monarch.
However, much had changed in the empire since 1620. After the political union with Scotland,
and the idea of a universal representative assembly had been promoted, many felt that the status
of North America had been left somewhat ambiguous. While the union of imperial Parliaments
had been accomplished in the home islands, the assemblies of the North American colonies had
remained largely untouched. This point, when considered within the context of royal sovereignty
over all lands of the empire, which included the New England grants, led most colonists to
mistakenly believe that their political structure was subservient to the king alone.
In fact, throughout Foxcroft’s sermon, the concept of all authority over the colonies is tied
directly back to the King. While Foxcroft does mention the concept of a“king-in-parliament”
governing structure, he illustrates his lack of understanding for the concept by asking god that
“our supreme sovereign be blessed with a faithful Parliament;” no doubt an allusion to the
scheming Parliament which had undone several monarchs previously.
When viewed in this context, the intense loyalty and commitment to the person of the King
makes all the more sense from the colonial perspective. It should be pointed out, royal officials
had made significant efforts to establish this attachment to the King, if for no other reason than to
secure a peaceful transition for the new line and secure the loyalty of the empire’s subjects.
Nowhere was this effort more successful than in the North American colonies. Foxcroft refers to
George I as “ the light of God….around which all power and authority” revolves. In another
striking allusion, he compares the monarch as the center of the empire around which all other
component parts orbit; as do the planets around the sun. It is an ironic comparison strikingly
similar to what might have been said about the absolutist “Sun King” Louis of France.
The sermon offers numerous connections between God and King. For instance, he reminds
his listeners that although George I’s death is unfortunate, God is the ultimate force behind his
death. His death of natural causes was a sign that God had preserved him from his enemies. As
New Englanders were the King’s subjects, George I and his son George II were God’s
lieutenants on earth. Foxcroft’s recurrent connection between God’s authority and the King’s
authority is reminiscent of the argument of divine right; a concept supposedly defeated in
England for some time.
McConville argues that this believe in a “benevolent divine right” was a variant of the
absolutist model keenly adopted for the colonial perspective. Not only did it allow for the much
desired connection between God and the colonists’ political situation, but it also placed them
within a much cherished hierarchy similar to that of their Puritan past. This relationship to God
gave colonists a sense of security in having a monarch whose purpose was found in defending
the colonists against all foes, wether internal or external. A testament to the strength of this idea
in the colonies is found as late as the 1770s, when beleaguered colonists turned to their king,
George III, for defense against a corrupt and overreaching Parliament. It was only late refusal in
1775, of the olive branch petition that broke the final connection to a benevolent King in colonial
minds.
Although this was many years in the future, Foxcroft’s oration did outline some important
limitations on the benevolent monarch concept. Even in his title he reminded his listeners that as
God was the ultimate power over kings, he possessed the power to dethrone them when
necessary. He reached back only a generation to recall the death of a Stuart King at the hands of
Providence.
Moreover, he pointed out that as God had anointed the Hanoverian line, as he did King
David of Israel, he did so primarily for the benefit of his people. Kings, according to Foxcroft,
had a duty to administer their subjects justly and righteously. Failure to do so would draw the
wrath of God, just as the enemies of God’s king had suffered. Seemingly as quickly as Foxcroft
had legitimized the authority of the King over his subjects by divine power, he argued powerful
stipulations to that power; perhaps in an anticipation of the natural law argument that would
engulf colonial thinkers at the dawn of the American Revolution.
Thomas Foxcroft’s sermon, though consciously an effort to lament the loss of what he
considered a good ruler as well as welcome in the reign of his successor, also illustrated
important foundations of the colonial understanding of themselves and their imperial home. His
understanding of loyalty was both politically calculated and sincere. Its complex origins could be
found and justified in New England’s political and religious traditions. However, important
elements of that loyalty sprung from the understanding of the recent British past.
Perhaps equally as important, the past of the New England mind shaped how the colonists
saw themselves and their role in an as-yet still evolving empire. This identity, shaped by fealty to
their Protestant Monarch, helped define the basis of imperial authority and organization as they
perceived it. This perception was entirely useful in the early eighteenth century in fostering a
growing sense of unity under the King as the empire expanded and consolidated its control.
However, the failure to reconcile colonial perceptions with imperial realities may have ultimately
contributed to the crisis of identity and authority precipitating the Revolutionary crisis of the
1760s and 1770s.
Endnotes
Thomas Foxcroft, God The Judge, Putting down One, and Setting up Another: A Sermon upon the
Occasion of the Death of our late Sovereign Lord King George and the Accession of his present Majesty,
King George, II. To the British Throne. Boston, 1727, 4, 9, 20-1.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 34; Brendon McConville, The King’s Three Faces: The Rise and Fall of Royal
America, 1688-1776. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 45-6.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, i-v.
1
2
3
Ibid., 1-2; J. Revell Carr, Seeds of Discontent: The Deep Roots of the American Revolution, 1650-1750.
(New York: Walker Publishing, 2008), 28-34, 37.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 31-3; Jenny Hale Pulsipher, Subjects Unto the Same King: Indians, English,
and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2005), 41, 59-60.
Stephen Pincus, “ The English Debate Over Universal Monarchy,” in A Union For Empire: Political
Thought and the British Union of 1707, ed. John Robertson. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1995),
60-62; Foxcroft, God the Judge, 5-10.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 27; McConville, The Kings Three Faces, 94-99.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 15-17; William Hubbard, The Present State of New England. Boston, 1677, xxi;
Carr, Seeds of Discontent, 117.
McConville, The Kings Three Faces, 206-8.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 2, 13-14, 34.
Ibid., 16; Thomas S. Kidd, The Protestant Interest: New England After Puritanism. (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2004), 29-33.
J.G.A. Pocock, “Empire, State, and Confederation: The War of American Independence as a Crisis in
Multiple Monarchy,” in A Union for Empire: Political Thought and the British Union of 1707. (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 322.
Ibid., 326-8; McConville, The Kings Three Faces, 256-8; Foxcroft, God the Judge, 13, 24.
McConville, The Kings Three Faces, 261-2; Emory Elliot, Power and the Pulpit in Puritan New England.
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 170-3.
Pocock, “ Empire, State, and Confederation”, 342.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 27, 31-3.
McConville, The Kings Three Faces, 53-5.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 29-33.
Ibid., 26-30, 39.
McConville, The Kings Three Faces, 171-4.
Ibid., 264-9, 302.
Foxcroft, God the Judge, 19-21.
Ibid., 3-4, 22.
Kidd, The Protestant Interest, 89; Ned Lansman, “ The Legacy of British Union for North American
Colonies: Provincial Elites and the Problem of Imperial Union,” in A Union For Empire: Political Thought
and the British Union of 1707. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 306-7.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24