Popular Radicalism, Religious Parody and the Mock Sermon in the 1790s

'Political sermons', complained the clergyman William Moodie in 1792, were 'attended with many bad effects'. For a start, they diminished the 'dignity of religion' by focusing on divisive, worldly subjects, which tended to 'inflame' the passions of the people rather than improve their hearts. Even worse, bemoaned Moodie, these bad effects were compounded when such sermons were communicated to the labouring classes. If the 'lower classes' were allowed to debate 'political subjects' or read 'political treatises', they would become dissatisfied with their 'condition' and seek to commit 'every evil work'.¹

Writing just as the formation of a popular radical movement in Britain was providing the labouring classes with new opportunities to engage in political discussion, Moodie was concerned that this situation would be exacerbated by the proliferation of political sermons being spoken and printed in the wake of the French Revolution. Intriguingly, his outburst had been prompted by a visit to a bookshop, where he had purchased a sermon, which he intended to use as a devotional aid during a quiet hour of meditation. From the title page, the sermon appeared to offer nothing more than an explication of a passage from the Book of Revelations. When the clergyman returned home and began reading the text, however, he was aggrieved to discover that a political pamphlet had been 'palmed' off on him in the 'form of a sermon'. While the offending sermon championed political reform, it was hardly inflammatory, being as elitist as it was moderate. In typically Whiggish fashion, for instance, it expressed deep suspicion of the 'impetuosity' of the people.² But this failed to reassure Moodie, who alleged that the circulation of political tracts under the guise of sermons was a dangerous practice. As a matter of fact, Moodie was not opposed to sermons of a political nature, only those that promulgated radical views. Later in the decade, he published two sermons, both of which contributed to the loyalist attack on the popular radical movement. Articulating a key tenet of loyalist political argument, the first promoted the duty of subordination, depicting the division of society into rich and poor as a providential arrangement.³ The second, delivered on a public Fast Day, argued that the British war effort against revolutionary France had the 'blessing of God', as did the suppression of democratic sentiments at home.⁴

Fig. 1.

Amusement for Starving Mechanics, R. Lee, London, 1795.

© British Library Board, General Reference Collection 649.c.21(I).

Like most establishment writers, Moodie probably believed that loyalist views were grounded in theological truths, appropriately expressed in sermons, while radical claims were mere opinions, often atheistic in origin.⁵ But even if he was simply duplicitous, this particular clergyman understood that sermons had become important conduits of propaganda in the polarized political climate of the 1790s, whether they could be counted as genuine or not.

Of the many political tracts masquerading as sermons during the British debate over the French Revolution, the most blatant and provocative simulations were a group of radical mock sermons published in London in the middle of the decade. These satirical productions were printed and sold by committed radical-society members, often in collaboration with business-minded booksellers less involved in political activity. In other words, they were available at respectable, established bookshops as well as at disreputable, makeshift outlets specializing in radical propaganda. Priced cheaply, their target audience was artisans who had been galvanized by the popular movement for parliamentary reform. These were labouring men with a hunger for ideas, but with limited financial resources.⁶ In fact, like similar pamphlets, most if not all of the mock sermons would have been enjoyed in communal settings, at radical-society meetings and informal, convivial gatherings, greatly increasing their circulation. But they were also pitched more generally at artisans with a religious orientation, and they probably aimed to disseminate radical views to the unsuspecting readers of popular devotional literature. This was a source of complaint for at least one conservative journalist. In a hostile review of a couple of...