Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:51:30.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Kingdom’s Case: The Use of Casuistry as a Political Language 1640-1692

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2017

Edward Vallance
Get access

Extract

It has now become orthodoxy for historians to write about political texts as being part of discourses or languages. This approach has much merit. At the very least, the work of Quentin Skinner, J. G. A. Pocock and John Dunn has encouraged historians to use a broader range of sources, and to ground their analysis of political thought in a firm historical context. Beyond this, discourse analysis offers a means of establishing a causal relationship between political thought and political action. To echo Richard Ashcraft’s definition, political theory is not merely a product of its social context. It supplies the criteria according to which the actions appropriate for changing that context are rendered intelligible. For Skinner and Pocock, the governing paradigms of political discourses, as much as concrete institutions and social structures, have an influence on political actions. However, this approach also has some limitations. Even after the “linguistic turn,” the history of political thought is still predominantly concerned with the accurate recovery of the meaning of texts, not with the reception or dissemination of ideas. To realize the full impact of political texts, we need to uncover not only the author’s intentions in writing, but also the ways in which these works were read and used by their audience.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , Winter 2002 , pp. 557 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Skinner, Quentin, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8 (1969): 3–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History (London, 1971)Google Scholar. Some criticisms of discourse analysis are offered in Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, ed. James Tully (Cambridge, 1986).

2 Ashcraft, Richard, Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, 1986), pp. 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 SirThomas, Keith, “Cases of Conscience in Seventeenth Century England,” in Morrill, John, Slack, Paul, and Woolf, Daniel, eds., Public Duty and Private Conscience in Seventeenth Century England (Oxford, 1993), pp. 29–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Sommerville, Johann, “Jacobean Political Thought and the Controversy over the Oath of Allegiance” (Ph.D. diss, Cambridge University, 1981)Google Scholar.

5 On oaths see Jones, David M., Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth Century England: The Political Significance of Oaths and Engagements (London, 1999)Google Scholar: Spurr, John, “Perjury, Profanity and Politics,” The Seventeenth Century 8 (1993): 29–50Google Scholar; Robbins, Caroline, “Selden’s Pills: State Oaths in England, 1558-1714,” Huntington Library Quarterly 35 (1972): 303–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hill, Christopher, “From Oaths to Interest,” in his Society and Puritanism (London, 1964)Google Scholar, ch.11.

6 Taylor, Jeremy, Ductor Dubitantium, vol. 9 of The Whole Works (London, 1852), p. vGoogle Scholar.

7 Wood, Thomas, English Casuistical Divinity During the Seventeenth Century (London, 1952), p. 36nGoogle Scholar.

8 Taylor, , Ductor Dubitantium, p. 210Google Scholar.

9 Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory (1673), “Advertisements.” Unless otherwise stated works published before 1700 are printed in London.

10 William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof (n. pl. [Amsterdam], 1639), book two, p. 86.

11 Slights, Camille Wells, “Ingenious Piety; Anglican Casuistry of the Seventeenth Century,” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jonsen, Alan R. and Toulmin, Stephen, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley, 1988), p. 167Google Scholar; See also Kirk, K. E., Conscience and its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry (London, 1927)Google Scholar.

12 Ames, Conscience with the Power, p. 87.

13 Wood, English Casuistical Divinity, p. 52.

14 Sanderson, Robert, The Whole Works; ed. Jacobson, William, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1854), 5: 102Google Scholar.

15 Slights, “Ingenious Piety,” p. 411.

16 Wallace, John M., “The Engagement Controversy 1649-52: An Annotated List of Pamphlets,” Bulletin of the New York Public Library 68 (1969): 385–165Google Scholar. For the text of the Engagement see Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum 1642-1660, ed. C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait, 3 vols., (London, 1911), 2: 325-27. On the scale of oath-taking controversies see also Goldie, Mark, “The Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument,” Bulletin of Research in the Humanities 83 (1980): 473–564Google Scholar.

17 The Anti-Covenant (Oxford, 1643); A Letter to a Noble Lord…Touching the New Solemne League and Covenant (Oxford, 1644); The Unlawfulnesse of the New Covenant Briefly Manifested in a Letter (Oxford, 1643). For the contents of these two covenants see A Sacred Vow and Covenant Taken by the Lords and Commons (1643); Kenyon, John P., The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 263–66Google Scholar.

18 Dury, John, A Case of Conscience Resolv’d: Concerning Ministers Medling with State-Matters (1649)Google Scholar.

19 [ Dury, John], A Second Parcel of Objections Against the Taking of the Engagement (1650), p. 106Google Scholar.

20 A Political Catechism, or Certain Questions Concerning the Government of this Landfor the More Compleat Setting of Consciences, Particularly of Those that Have Made the Late Protestation (1643). The text of the oath, ostensibly made in defence of the “true reformed religion”and the maintenance of “His Majesty’s royal person and estate,” is given in Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, pp. 221-23.

21 These points are discussed in greater detail in Vallance, , “‘An Holy and Sacramentall Paction’: Federal Theology and the Solemn League and Covenant in England,” English Historical Review 116 (2001): 50–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Eaton, Samuel, The Oath of Allegiance and the National Covenant Proved to be Non-obliging (1650), pp. 50–51Google Scholar; Ascham, Anthony, Of the Confusions and Revolutions of Governments (1649), pp. 89–93Google Scholar; Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. Tuck, Richard (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 484–86Google Scholar.

23 Donagan, Barbara, “Casuistry and Allegiance in the English Civil War,” in Writing and Political Engagement in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Hirst, Derek and Strier, Richard (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 90–91Google Scholar. The extent to which printing works in this period meant that they had been “published” is, in any case, a moot point, see Love, Harold, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Robert Sanderson, “A Resolution of Conscience,” B[ritish] L[ibrary], Add[itional] MS. 32093, £ 272-75; BL, Add. MS. 746, f. 146; Bodl[eian Library, Oxford] MS Tanner 461, f. 54-55; Henry Hammond, “A Briefe Resolution,” Bodl. MS Tanner 459, f. 43-44; Bodl. MS Eng. Th. e. 20, f. 215-21.

25 Baxter, Richard, Reliquiae Baxterianae, ed. Sylvester, Matthew (1696), part one, p. 64Google Scholar.

26 Bodl. MS. Jones 17, f. 247-48; see also Bodl. MS. Tanner 65, f. 43-44.

27 Bodl. MS. Carte 8, f. 384-89.

28 “To the Authors of the late Act of Conform[ity] An appeale to theyr own Consciences conce[rning] the Solemn League and Covenant,” Bodl. MS. Rawlinson D. 1494, f. 79-88.

29 Bodl. MS. Rawlinson 373, f. 70-71.

30 Bodl. MS. Tanner 104, f. 263-64.

31 Bodl. MS. Rawlinson D 1041, f. 127-32; Bodl. MS. Rawlinson D 1350, f. 324-28.

32 H[istorical] Manuscripts] C[omission], De L’Isle MSS, vi (London, 1966), pp. 466-78.

33 Ibid., p. 472.

34 20 Ibid., p. 598. Other peers subscribed on a similar basis, see Ward, Ian, “The English Peerage 1649-60: Government, Authority and Estates” (Ph.D diss, Cambridge University, 1989), pp. 64-69, 512–13Google Scholar.

35 Memoirs of (he Verney Family During the Civil War, ed. F. P. Verney, 2 vols. (London, 1892): 2: 160-61.

36 Ibid., 2: 211-12.

37 Guyborn Goddard to John Greene, 25 Feb. 1644, BL, Add MS 39922 A f. 1.

38 “A Treatise concerning ye Cov.[enant] by Wi[lliam] War[wick],” Bodl. MS. Rawlinson D 1347, f. 364-75.

39 HMC, Ormonde MSS, New Series, i (London, 1902), pp. 144-16

40 Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, eds. N. H. Keeble and G. H. Nuttall, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1991) 1:58-59.

41 Wynne, William, The Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, 2 vols. (London, 1723) 2: 647–50Google Scholar.

42 Sanderson, Works, 5: 20-35.

43 Bodl. MS. Tanner 233, f. 135-47. It was first ascribed to Filmer by Schochet, Gordon J., “Sir Robert Filmer: Some New Bibliographical Discoveries,” The Library 26 (1971): 135–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. James Daly noted that allusions to the benefits of mixed government, distinction between the nature and exercise of power and questions of written style cast serious doubt on Filmer’s authorship, Sir Robert Filmer and English Political Thought (Toronto, 1979), pp. 194-98. These two cases are discussed in detail in Vallance, , “Oaths, Casuistry and Equivocation: Anglican Responses to the Engagement Controversy,” Historical Journal 44 (2001): 59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Perceval-Maxwell, Michael, “The Adoption of the Solemn League and Covenant by the Scots in Ulster,” Scotia: Interdisciplinary Journal of Scottish Studies 2 (1978): 3–18Google Scholar.

45 Steele, Margaret, “‘The Politick Christian’: The Theological Background to the National Covenant,” in The Scottish National Covenant in its British Context ed. Morrill, John (Edinburgh, 1990), p. 31Google Scholar.

46 Bodl. MS. Carte 10, f. 207, Montgomery to Ormonde, 14 April 1644.

47 Ibid., f. 336.

48 HMC, Ormonde MSS, i (London, 1895), pp. 90-91; Mervyn was also encouraged to swear as a means to maintain his authority in Derry, Perceval-Maxwell, “Solemn League and Covenant,” 11, 13.

49 HMC, 5th Report (London, 1876), p. 82.

50 Holmes, Clive, The Suffolk Committee for Scandalous Ministers (Suffolk Record Society, 13, 1970), p. 16Google Scholar; Green, Ian M., “The Persecution of ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Malignant’ Parish Clergy During the English Civil War,” English Historical Review 94 (1972): 507–32Google Scholar; pp. 513, 519; See also Sharpe, Jim “Scandalous and Malignant Priests in Essex: The Impact of Grassroots Puritanism,” in Politics and People in Revolutionary England, eds., Jones, C., Newitt, M., and Roberts, S. (Oxford, 1986), pp. 253–75Google Scholar.

51 Bodl. MS. Walker C. 6, f. 28.

52 Ibid., f. 27.

53 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1650, p. 20.

54 Ibid., 1650, p. 427.

55 Bodl. MS. Carte 10, f. 350-52.

56 Wood, Anthony, The History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, ed. Gluten, J., 3 vols. (Oxford, 1786-90), 2: 491Google Scholar.

57 Another oath tendered to inhabitants of Oxford required them to declare the Parliament’s armies “traitorous and rebellious,” An Oath to be Administered unto All Officers and Souldiers Within the Garrison of Oxford (Oxford, 1645).

58 Cheynell, Francis, An Account Given to the Parliament by the Ministers Sent by Them to Oxford (1647), p. 52Google Scholar.

59 Memorandums of the Conferences Held Between the Brethren that Scrupled at the Engagement; and Others Who Were Satisfied (1650).

60 Wallace “Engagement Controversy,” p. 395.

61 per Ingram, Martin, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570-1640 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 97–98Google Scholar.

62 Slights, Camille Wells, The Casuistical Tradition in Shakespeare, Donne, Herbert and Milton (Princeton, 1981)Google Scholar.

63 Considerations Concerning the Present Engagement (1649), Bodl. 40 E 7(8) Jur; Conscience Puzzel’d About Subscribing to the New Engagement (1650), BL, 720d. 12.5.

64 Puritanism and Liberty Being the Army Debates (1647-9) from the Clarke Manuscripts with Supplementary Documents, ed. A. S. P. Woodhouse (London, 1938), pp. 9-11.

65 Ibid., p. 16.

66 The Knyvett Letters, ed. Bertram Schofield (Norfolk Historical Society, 20, 1949), p. 160. The pamphlet in question was actually titled The Plain-meaning Protestant (Oxford, 1644).

67 [ Cheynell, Francis], The Sworne Confederacy Between the Convocation at Oxford and the Tower of London (1647), p. 2Google Scholar.

68 Baxter, Correspondence, 2: 59.

69 HMC, Portland MSS, iii (London, 1894), p. 172.

70 Bodl. MS. Tanner 56, f. 257.

71 The Life of Adam Martindale, ed. R. Parkinson (Chetham Society, 4, 1845), pp. 92-100.

72 Bodl. MS. Carte 8, f. 380-89, 394-405, 510.

73 Barber, Sarah, Regicide and Republicanism: Politics and Ethics in the English Revolution, 1646-1659 (Edinburgh, 1998), p. 181Google Scholar.

74 Public Record Office, Kew CI 15/99 nos. 7312-7314; Atherton, Ian, Ambition and Failure in Stuart England: The Career of John, First Viscount Scudamore (Manchester, 1999), pp. 220-22, 228Google Scholar.

75 Aylmer, Gerald, The State’s Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic 1649-1660 (London, 1973), pp. 234–38Google Scholar; BL, Add. MS. 46190 (Jessop Papers vol. iii), f. 190-93.

76 Ibid., f. 190.

77 Ibid., f. 191.

78 Ibid., f. 193.

79 The Historical Works of James Harrington, ed. J. G. A Pocock, (Cambridge, 1977), p. 22.

80 Ibid., p. 23

81 Ibid., p. 29.

82 The Kingdomes Case: or the Question Resolved (1643); Edward Fisher, An Appeale to Thy Conscience (n. pi., 1644 [really 1643]); The Grand Case of England, So Fiercely Now Disputed by Fire and Sword, Epitomized (1642); The Grand Question Concerning Taking Up Arms Against the King Answered, by Application of the Holy Scriptures to the Conscience of Every Subject (n. pi., 1643).

83 Harrington, ed. Pocock, p. 24.

84 Ibid., p. 30.

85 Ferae, Henry, The Resolving of Conscience (Cambridge, 1642)Google Scholar, “To all Misse-Led People in the Land.”

86 Hunton, Phillip, A Treatise of Monarchie (1643), pp. 69–74Google Scholar.

87 [ Sanderson, Robert and Zouche, Richard], Reasons of the Present Judgement of the University of Oxford, Concerning the Solemn League and Covenant (1647), p. 1Google Scholar.

88 Ferae, , Resolving of Conscience, pp. 35–41Google Scholar.

89 Digges, Dudley, The Unlawfulness of Subjects Taking Up Arms (n. pl., 1643), p. 9Google Scholar.

90 Bridge, William, The Wounded Conscience Cured (1642)Google Scholar, “Introduction.”

91 Burroughs, Jeremiah, A Brief Answer to Dr. Femes Booke (1643), p. 2Google Scholar.

92 Feme, Henry, A Reply unto Severall Treatises (Oxford, 1643), p. 7Google Scholar.

93 Feme, Resolving of Conscience, p. 51.

94 Digges, Unlawfulness of Subjects Taking Up Arms, pp. 1, 61.

95 Donagan, “Casuistry and Allegiance,” p. 106.

96 Sanderson, , Works, 5: 37–59Google Scholar.

97 See Bosher, Robert, The Making of the Restoration Settlement 1649-1662 (London, 1951), pp. 16–23Google Scholar; Procter, F. and Frere, W. H., A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1914), pp. 155–59Google Scholar.

98 Sanderson, Works, 5: 44-15.

99 Ibid., 5: 59.

100 Ibid., 5: 48.

101 Ibid., 5: 44.

102 On the background to the drafting of the oath see Findon, John C., “The Non-Jurors and the Church of England 1689-1716” (Oxford Univ., D. Phil. Thesis, 1978), pp. 6–14Google Scholar.

103 Goldie, “Revolution of 1689.”

104 Findon, “Non-Jurors,” pp. 17-32; Bodl. MS Ballard 12, F. 47-48; Bodl. MS Tanner 28, f. 314-15.

105 Beddard, Robert A., “Observations of a London Clergyman on the Revolution of 1688-9: Being an Excerpt from the Autobiography of Dr William Wake,” Guildhall Miscellany 2 (1967): 416Google Scholar.

106 Goldie, “Revolution of 1689,” pp. 522-23.

107 Reynolds, Edward, The Humble Proposals of Sundry Learned and Pious Divines (2nd edn.; 1689)Google Scholar, “To the Reader.”

108 See above n. 24.

109 Sanderson, Robert, Casus Conscientiae (Sive Questiones Practicae) (Cambridge, 1688)Google Scholar.

110 For Jurors’ use of Sanderson see Pierre Allix, An Examination of the Scruples of Those Who Refuse to Take the Oath of Allegiance (1689), Thomas Long, A Resolution of Certain Queries Concerning Submission to the Present Government (1689), Allegiance Vindicated (1690); for Non-Jurors see Theophilius Downes, A Discourse Concerning the Signification of Allegiance (1689).

111 Hill, “Oaths to Interest.”

112 Schwoerer, Lois G., “A Jornall of the Convention at Westminster Begun the 22 Jam 1688/9,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49 (1976): 254, 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 On interest theory see Scott, Jonathan, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic 1623-1677 (Cambridge, 1988): ch. 13Google Scholar; Gunn, John A. W., Politics and the Public Interest in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1969)Google Scholar.

114 Burnet, Gilbert, An Enquiry into the Present State of Affairs (1689), p. 8Google Scholar.

115 Wagstaffe, Thomas, An Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication (1692), p. 133Google Scholar

116 Sherlock, William, The Case of Allegiance Due to Soveraign Powers (1691), p. 2Google Scholar.

117 A Modest Examination, p. 6.

118 Leites, Edmund, “Conscience, Casuistry and Moral Decision: Some Historical Perspectives,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 2 (1975): 45–58Google Scholar.

119 A Modest Examination of the New Oath of Allegiance (1689), p. 6.

120 Sharp, T., The Life of John Sharp, D. D., Lord Archbishop of York, 2 vols. (London, 1825) 1: 267–68Google Scholar.

121 Beddard, “Observations of a London Clergyman,” p. 411; “London in 1689-90 by the Rev. R. Kirk,” trans. D. Maclean, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, n. s., vii (1937): 305-06.

122 Johnson, Samuel, Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book (1690), p. 14Google Scholar.

123 “London in 1689-90,” p. 313.

124 Kettlewell, John, The Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True Grounds (1691), p. 27Google Scholar.

125 McAdoo, Henry R., The Structure of Caroline Moral Theology (London, 1949), p. 66Google Scholar.

126 There are almost five hundred Association oath rolls kept in the PRO, class C213.

127 The Country Gentleman’s Notion Concerning Governments (1696), p. 7.