Cult/ure: The Graduate Journal of Harvard Divinity School

Callum Brown addresses death in his Death of Christian Britain by analyzing the discursive nature of obituaries in England from 1800-1950.[ii]  Death and its surrounding discourse provided the evidence by which Brown was able to demonstrate one segment of his argument regarding secularization of Christian Britain.  It must be noted, however, that the deaths described in Brown’s piece were natural, if unexpected, deaths.  Yet other forms of decease, including premeditated forms of self-inflicted death, have also been documented in Western historical accounts.  Indeed, the kinds of “good” deaths, whereby the individual played no role in dying, have often been dichotomized with “bad” deaths, as with premeditated suicide or “self-murder.”[iii] 

Dissonant with wider Christian theology, suicide has historically held a place of particular friction in societies in the Christian West.  For instance, in Michael MacDonald’s piece, “The Secularization of Suicide in England 1600-1800,” the ethical, legal, and social implications of suicide in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England are extrapolated using obituaries and court pronouncements.[iv]  Looking specifically at the results of court cases against those accused of “self-murder,” MacDonald considers the influences of class distinctions, intellectual climate, and the changing relationship between the people and the throne in his argument on the secularization of suicide.  MacDonald takes time to consider the theological changes that took place at this time as well, however it is not as essential to his argument as are the judgment pronouncements and class interactions.

This paper will test MacDonald’s thesis regarding theological shifts from the pulpit by examining two sermons on suicide from this period.  It will employ Brown’s use of the discursive method, which finds evidence of historical change in the narrative of discourse, in understanding secularization; as sermons are both constructors and reflections of culture, the discursive interpretation of sermons can bring to light the cultural particularities and intellectual climate of the time.[v]  The first sermon, from 1663, is contrasted with a 1797 piece; both were given in London and were printed in pamphlet form for purchase.  The focus here is on the voices of the enemy, on the construction of the antagonistic voice that the respective clergymen confront.  Looking at the language of these two pieces allows for one to consider the changing social understanding of suicide in London.  Although this examination remains but a conjecture without the support of a much wider assortment of sermons from the pulpit, the evidence presented here does allow for at least a consideration of the reaction of British clergymen towards suicide and, as a result, the changing social views linking theology and suicide.   From an emphasis on the diabolical to a preponderance of the philosophical, these pieces provide wonderful insight into the theological responses to suicide and, ultimately, corroborate MacDonald’s words on the matter.

*                      *                      *

In the Courts

According to MacDonald, the responses to suicide changed in England from 1600 to 1800.  As a crime, “self-murder” was a matter for adjudication in the court system: an individual was posthumously taken to court and tried under the guidance of the local coroner with the ultimate conviction either upholding a natural death or that of suicide, each with its corresponding privilege or punishment.  Little is known about the coroners, but usually they were minor gentlemen who were elected to their posts by freeholders, or landowning gentlemen, of their counties.  Until the eighteenth century the coroner was not typically a physician or specialist in medicine; as a civil position, it was held by a man of standing in a particular community.[vi]  Part of the responsibilities of the coroner included assembling a jury for the twofold process of investigation and judgment of cases.  Unfortunately, according to MacDonald, “even less is known about the coroners’ jurors than the coroners.”[vii]  Typically, the men in the juries were “assembled in haste, and their members were chosen partly because of their acquaintance with the dead person and his or her affairs.”[viii] 

The connection between the jurors and the deceased would become important in the investigative/judicial process.  The coroner’s juries were responsible for assessing the manner of death and providing one of two possible verdicts for self-murder: either the individuals were charged with felo de se (felons of themselves), thus implying the official penalty for a conscientious suicide, or the alternative of non compos mentis (outside of their rational minds), which attributed insanity or mental instability to the individual.[ix]  Rulings of felo de se meant that the goods of the deceased were to be relinquished to the crown as a form of punishment; the corpse, moreover, was refused a religious burial and instead was quartered and buried at the intersection of a busy crossroad.  Those that were pronounced non compos mentis, alternatively, were “spared both the secular and the religious punishments for suicide”[x] and instead were handed back to the family for burial. 

The livelihoods and spiritual futures of the self-murderer and his/her family were therefore heavily reliant upon the coroner’s juries and their consideration of the facts.  Determining whether a death was indeed a suicide, however, was difficult for both practical and political reasons.  Drowning, for instance, was both a prevalent form of suicide in England also the most likely form of accidental death in this period: “Drowning was the most popular method of self-destruction among women throughout the early modern period, and it ranked second only to hanging among men.  Drowning was also one of the commonest causes of accidental death, and unless there were witnesses to the event it was impossible to prove that a person whose body was found in a pond or stream jumped or fell into it.”[xi]  Therefore, the ability to determine suicide was very difficult for issues such as drowning and other forms of death that could have been interpreted as accidental. 

Besides the practical difficulties in determining suicide, there was also the political or social component to the matter.  Verdicts of felo de se resulted in large amounts of property being handed over to royal elites and judiciary.  With a growing resentment over the right of the crown and lesser lords to seize the goods of self-murderers, however, came a growing reluctance to pronounce felo de se.[xii]  Compassion coupled with class solidarity and the rising importance of private property meant that those involved in the juries were more inclined to protect the goods of self-murderers, the livelihood of the families they left behind, and promote local solidarity through the means of non compos mentis.[xiii]  Ultimately, the amount of felo de se verdicts decreased dramatically from 1600 to the late 1700s; from the nineteenth century onwards, it was used very rarely and was instead employed as “a means of punishing anti-social actions posthumously, rather than a penalty for suicide itself.”[xiv]

Theologically Speaking

The pulpit had, alongside matters of property and law, an influence in the shifting perceptions of suicide in England during this period.  The tripartite union of law, folklore, and religion all sanctioned the condemnation of self-murder, for “suicide was spiritually perilous.”[xv]  Indeed, as detailed above, one of the punishments for felo de se was the denial of a Christian burial.  Unfortunately, “the religious punishments for suicide are inevitably less well documented than the financial ones, but the prohibition against the burial of self-murderers in consecrated ground seems to have been invariably observed.”[xvi]  As an act that had both secular and spiritual repercussions, then, it is not surprising that suicide was an important matter to discuss from the pulpit.

In the seventeenth century, “clergy taught that suicide was literally diabolical.”[xvii]  The self-murderer could not have possibly been in the right mind to have performed such a heinous act but, instead, was said to have been taken over by Satan himself.  In his sermon on suicide, the minister simply labeled as “R.F.” detailed this.[xviii]  Delivered in 1663, the piece is a combination of two interrelated parts, one on the suicide attempt and subsequent repentance of James Salowayes and the other on the attempts of Satan to tempt and overthrow, specifically through Biblical examples.  The language and content of R.F.’s sermon accentuates the close link that clergy made between self-murder and Satan.

Falling under pressure of a debt incurred during gambling (of all days, on the Sabbath), James Salowayes was imprisoned in the Wood-street-compter Prison.  He became stressed as he wondered how his debt would be paid and what the local community would think.  But then, “a voice (as he afterwards confessed) uttered within him, Thou shalt be burned in this prison, therefore it is better for thee to make away thy self than be burnt [italics original].”[xix]  Taking this suggestion, Salowayes found himself roaming the cells and “with a knife broken in the edge he wounded himself in the throat.”[xx]  But when he went to attack himself again, he found that an indescribable power restrained him.  As R.F. recounts: “when loe the Power of God, whilst he was lifting it to his throat, the knife (though, as he says, firmly holden) dropt out of his hand into the House of office, where he could no [sic] recover it.”[xxi]

R.F. was called to the scene the morning after, when the prisoners found Salowayes bloody, yet alive.  As a physician treated Salowayes, R.F. led those around him in prayer, asking fervently for the forgiveness and recovery of Salowayes.  When he finally recovered to the point that he could speak, Salowayes addressed R.F. and recounted his story.  As R.F. relates:

…in the morning [Salowayes] slept for some hours, and upon his waking I came to him, and spake to him, he presently thanked me for my pains, and told me he had great cause to give God praise for the addition of that mercy, to add one day more to his life, and he desired to live to glorifie God.  I found it not requisite to trouble him with many questions, those few I asked were, first, if he were not very sensible of his sin, how much he had offended the Mercy of God in offering to commit that horrid act.  He told me he had sinned grievously….I asked him in what manner his temptation was, whether by appearance, or some voyce uttering express words?  He told me again, not by appearance but a voyce since he came into prison spoke within him, and told him, He should be burned in prison, and therefore better to make himself away with his knife [italics original].[xxii]

From here, the piece begins its lengthy section on “Satan’s Attempt and Overthrow,” inspired by Salowayes’ story.  In its entirety, the sermon is a declaration of man’s frailty and Satan’s power of temptation, in particular on the temptation to self-murder.  It is through Salowayes’ attempt that we can realize the potential force of Satan: “The actions of our predecessors are our books, much more may this exemplary act become a book to us who are present, wherein we may read Man’s frailty, the Tempter’s malice, God’s great and ever to be remembered restraint.”[xxiii]  Turning to Scripture, the sermon continues with a lengthy exegesis of all the temptations of Jesus and other Biblical figures.  Emphasis is placed on the suffering of Jesus and Satan’s persistent labors at temptation, parallels for the lives of the readers/listeners of this piece.  For instance, in detailing Jesus’ temptation to turn stones into bread, R.F. recounts: “Thous wast not without power to command bread, but thou art without purpose to distrust they Father; thou wast not without power to do a miracle, but without will to gratifie Satan, and do it at his pleasure….And is this nothing unto us that pass by?  Yes it is, see and consider how answerable Christ’s obedience is to our offences.”[xxiv]  Elsewhere, in considering the Ten Commandments, R.F. discusses the matter of suicide directly: “But all this is against killing of another; does he then passe by or priviledge the killing of thy self?  Every temptation thou entertainest is a wound…sins are so many wounds to Christ, to thy soul, makes him bleed afresh, kills thy soul without sound repentance.”[xxv]

This sermon, then, displays the Satanic and diabolical themes consistent with MacDonald’s description of theological pronouncements regarding suicide in the seventeenth century.  It is a piece obsessed with Satan, temptation, and sin, all of which arise, ultimately, from the story of Salowayes’ suicide attempt.  The act is interpreted only through a theological lens: the act of suicide is one of self-murder, condemned by the Commandment against the act, and is a sin greatly offensive to Jesus, one who suffered greatly and was more severely tempted and yet remained without blemish.  Matters of the social implications or philosophical defenses of suicide are noticeably absent.  Indeed, the sermon as a whole is dedicated to eradicating the theological dangers; the enemy is clearly Satan and the cause is solely man’s weakness.

Conversely, Dr. George Gregory, D.D. published his sermon at the end of the eighteenth century.[xxvi]  As a sermon “against a crime which has latterly become more frequent than usual…a crime which appears to involve the possible destruction of both body and soul,”[xxvii] this sermon on suicide was preached at St. Botolph’s Bishopgate in 1797 on the date of the anniversary of the Royale Humane Society.  It is clear through Gregory’s words, in contrast to those of R.F., that he identifies suicide as a much more complicated offense, one that is not limited solely to the theological realm.  Indeed, he attributes a relative silence in Scripture regarding the topic: “It is remarkable, that there are scarcely any injunctions in scripture particularly pointed against this sin; because, doubtless, the inspired writers considered it of that atrocious nature that the warnings of conscience itself were sufficient to prevent its frequency, and because the voice of nature instinctively cries out against it.”[xxviii]  Understanding suicide as a transgression, then, is for Gregory greatly a matter of common sense and sheer conscience.

In the piece, Gregory is systematic in demonstrating the many levels of offense with suicide.  Theologically, self-murder is an act that shows distrust in the “paternal care” of God and eliminates the possibility of forgiveness or repentance: “In a word we are assured from scripture that the adulterer, the blasphemer, the murderer himself may by full repentance, by hearty contrition, hope ultimately for salvation; but we have nothing like a similar assurance in favour of the suicide.  He indeed robs himself of the benefits of repentance; and seems industrious to bar the gates of mercy against his own soul.” [xxix]^{, [xxx]}  Suicide is also, and primarily, an offense against nature and society.  As Gregory argues, suicide violates the first law of nature, that of self-preservation: man is meant to pursue life, to prevent death.  Suicide clashes directly with the self-preserving instinct.  Simultaneously, suicide violates the first of social laws, that of man’s duty to the social welfare of society and the duties therein.  Especially in a context where the male headship of the family held the primary economic and social authority, the self-murder of a father or male head held the possibility of leading many others into ruin.  Family and community members could find themselves without the adequate social support, thus falling into a danger of poverty.[xxxi]  In his sermon overall, Gregory spends more time discussing these secular wrongdoings (secular in that they do not deal with the theological) than with the spiritual elements.

In identifying the causes of self-murder, Dr. Gregory points to two main causes: (1) philosophy and education, especially those of “Atheism and Infidelity,” and (2) money, both through “Gaming” and in “the irrational desire of becoming wealthy on a sudden.” [xxxii]^{, [xxxiii]}  Of the two causes, however, atheism and infidelity are the main points of concern.  For indeed it is in the opening words that Dr. Gregory writes for the publication of his sermon that he takes great pains to isolate these two forces as being central to his condemnation of suicide; his words against atheists and infidels are quite vitriolic:

I know that in attacking, as I have, Atheism and Infidelity, I have stirred a nest of hornets…because it is the only argument with which the pretended philosophers of the present day have attempted to refute the irrefragable proofs which have been urged in support of religion….In a word, every religious man, whatever his speculative tenets, I regard as a friend; but the man, who endeavours to destroy in his fellow-mortals the belief of a Supreme Creator and Governor of the Universe, or who would release men from the salutary constraints which the doctrine of a future state imposes on them, is certainly a bad citizen; and, in my opinion, it is next to a miracle, if in his private capacity he should be otherwise than a bad man.[xxxiv]

It is clear that the sermon as a whole is directed to these incursive forces.  Hume’s Essay on Suicide, for instance, is treated at length in a footnote in the published sermon as the inspiration of one man’s self-murder.[xxxv]  While dictating that it is “necessary to be on your guard against those causes and circumstances which commonly lead to the commission of [suicide],”[xxxvi] the main temptation comes from the secular forces of the intellectual elite.  With this piece published at the cusp of the nineteenth century, then, philosophy has become the fear.  Barely touching upon the theological dangers of Satanic temptation, Gregory focuses his words against the philosophy that has come to be accepted in society. 

Conclusion

By examining the enemies identified in each of these sermons, spaced more than a century apart, one can ascertain the shifting changes in thought and social custom that influenced the theological pronouncements regarding suicide.  In the piece by R.F., the main antagonist was Satan and his temptation; suicide was interpreted as an act so obscene, so irrational, that it could only come as a means of diabolical manipulation.  The forces at play were antipodal theological agents: while Satan commanded Salowayes to slay himself, God expelled the knife from Salowayes’ hand and made him see the errors of his ways.  The main message, then, was one of warning: do not let your hearts open and admit the guidance of Satan.  Take the lessons of the temptations from Scripture and identify with the actors; resist Satan and sin.

All of this, however, came before the advent of Enlightenment thinkers such as Hume and Rousseau.  These “Atheists and Infidels” provided an intellectual climate in England whereby suicide grew to be understood in a more sympathetic light.  Although the matter continued to have theological implications, seen in Gregory’s requests to consider the fate of the tenuousness in the relationship of the soul with God, it is also very clear that Dr. Gregory was primarily battling forces beyond the spiritual.  Enlightenment philosophers created an intellectual environment that compelled Gregory to implore of his listeners and readers: “Cherish in your hearts, and endeavour to impress upon your understandings, what a philosopher of no mean repute has termed the beginning of wisdom – THE FEAR OF GOD.”[xxxvii] 

Begging for the reader/listener to return matters to the theological, Gregory’s sermon juxtaposed alongside that of R.F. demonstrates the changes that took place in the social and cultural outlook regarding suicide.  With Enlightenment thinking came a rationale that empathized, even if it did not altogether condone, suicide.  From the pulpit, then, preachers had to contend with the temptation of philosophy rather than theological temptation.  Instead of being instructed to pray, listeners in 1797 were more likely encouraged to turn away from the literature that was quickly becoming popular.  In short, society had changed and the perceptions of suicide therein had morphed accordingly.  In the end, the voice of the enemy had shifted from Satan to Hume.