Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 The Theory of Royal Sovereignty
- 2 The Theory of Religious Intolerance
- 3 The Reception of Thomas Hobbes
- 4 Danby, the Bishops, and the Whigs
- 5 Priestcraft and the Birth of Whiggism
- 6 Toleration and the Godly Prince
- 7 Toleration and the Huguenots
- 8 Andrew Marvell’s Adversaries
- 9 Annual Parliaments and Aristocratic Whiggism
- 10 William Lawrence and the Case for King Monmouth
- 11 Sir Peter Pett, Sceptical Toryism, and the Science of Toleration
- 12 The Political Thought of the Anglican Revolution
- 13 John Locke and Anglican Royalism
- Index
- Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History
Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2023
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 The Theory of Royal Sovereignty
- 2 The Theory of Religious Intolerance
- 3 The Reception of Thomas Hobbes
- 4 Danby, the Bishops, and the Whigs
- 5 Priestcraft and the Birth of Whiggism
- 6 Toleration and the Godly Prince
- 7 Toleration and the Huguenots
- 8 Andrew Marvell’s Adversaries
- 9 Annual Parliaments and Aristocratic Whiggism
- 10 William Lawrence and the Case for King Monmouth
- 11 Sir Peter Pett, Sceptical Toryism, and the Science of Toleration
- 12 The Political Thought of the Anglican Revolution
- 13 John Locke and Anglican Royalism
- Index
- Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History
Summary
The people of early modern England believed themselves to belong to two societies, answering to the dual aspect of their human nature, soul and body. They called these societies spiritual and temporal. They also referred to them as ‘church’ and ‘state’, or ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘civil’. The two societies were understood to have distinct purposes, eternal salvation and earthly welfare, but in practice they were entangled. Thus they were conceptually – or, as philosophers today would say, analytically – distinct; but substantively, in actual life, they were necessarily conjoined. Souls were, on this earth, embodied. People's lives in this world ought to be godly, and earthly institutions should be imbued with divine purpose. The church had for centuries been deeply involved in temporal affairs, and ministers of religion, besides their spiritual callings from Christ, exercised extensive worldly authority. Conversely, princes demanded oversight of the church, even a ‘royal supremacy’ in matters ecclesiastical. The boundaries between temporal and spiritual realms were consequently fraught with ambiguity and contestation.
In theory at least, the two societies were co-extensive, in that all the people were simultaneously members of both societies. The church comprised the commonwealth at prayer, and civil society comprised the godly at work. England was understood to be a godly commonwealth, and subject to godly rule. The commonwealth was godly not only because the two societies were co-extensive, and not only because the ruler was Christian, but also because temporal rulers – the ‘prince’ and the ‘magistrates’ – were held to have a duty to support and uphold the church, by lending the force of the state to the service of the Christian creed, its worship, and its governance. Correspondingly, the rulers of the church, the bishops and the wider hierarchy, had a proper role as counsellors to the prince and the magistrates, and as keepers of the public conscience.
The two societies were corporate bodies. Although Christ had said ‘my kingdom is not of this world’, and some critics of the worldly church wished, on that account, to dissolve the corporate church, nonetheless the body of Christ's people on earth was a legal entity, with jurisdiction and governance.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Contesting the English Polity, 1660-1688Religion, Politics, and Ideas, pp. 1 - 11Publisher: Boydell & BrewerPrint publication year: 2023