¹ White’s main scientific works were De Mundo (Paris, 1642) and Peripateticall Institutions (Lyons, 1646). As the title of the latter implies, he insisted on the need to retain an essentially Aristotelian framework, though he tried to incorporate within that important aspects of the new science. For a recent assessment of his scientific significance, see Henry, J., ‘Atomism and Eschatology: Catholicism and Natural Philosophy in the Interregnum’, The British Journal for the History of Science 15, 1982, 211–239.Google Scholar

² The words quoted are from a letter to the Bishop of Chalcedon, 18 June 1651 (A.A.W. XXX.140). His theological work has been re-assessed in the 20th century: G. H. Tavard, for example, has described White in this respect as ‘a genial anticipator of future trends.’ (‘Scripture and Tradition among 17th Century Recusants’, Theological Studies 25, 1964, 374.)

³ The first edition has often been dated to 1649; for my arguments in favour of 1655, see my ‘Thomas White’s Grounds of Obedience and Government: A Note on the Dating of the First Edition’, Notes & Queries N.S. 28, 1981, 208–9. In this paper, I shall henceforth abbreviate White’s title to The Grounds.

⁴ See my Thomas White, 1593–1676: a reputation and its decline’ Essex Recusant 23, 1981, 29–36.

⁵ This is the date tentatively assigned in the B.L. catalogue.

⁶ B.L. Add. MS 41846, fols. 180–181.

⁷ B.L. Add. MS 48146, fols. 84–86.

⁸ Old Brotherhood Archives, vol. 2, 130.

⁹ The theoretical nature of the work is re-emphasised in White’s ‘Apology’, fols. 4, 21.

¹⁰ ‘Apology’, fol. 23. White diplomatically refuses to believe any such thing, in view of ‘his Majesty’s merciful dealing with so many guilty persons’—but he did, as a precaution, absent himself from England from 1660 to 1662.

¹¹ On Blackloism, see Miller, J. L., Popery and Politics in England, 1660–1688, London, 1973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bossy, J., The English Catholic Community, 1570–1850, London, 1975 Google Scholar. The growth in power of the Blackloists (whose name was derived from their leader White’s pseudonym) at this time is noted by George Leyburn: ‘Mr. Blackloe hath much strengthened himself since… my Lord Bish. [i.e.Smith’s] death [in 1655], for as much as he has new Chapter-men created, who are according to his own heart.’ (Enyclical Answer, Douai, 1661, 36.)

¹² ‘Apology’, fols. 1, 18, 19.

¹³ Dr. Winstad to Sir E. Nicholas, Rouen, 27 February 1649; in Carte, T. ed., A Collection of Original Letters and Papers, 2 vols., London, 1739, 1, 221.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Lord John Byron to the Marquess of Ormonde, Caen, 1 March 1649; in ibid., 217.

¹⁵ Warner, G. F. ed., Nicholas Papers, London, 1886, 1, 303 Google Scholar. The reference is more particularly to the Blackloist Henry Holden, whose Analysis Fidei was published that year.

¹⁶ Cf. R. T. Petersson, Sir Kenelm Digby, the Ornament of England, London, 1956, 250. See also Hyde’s letter to Clement, 16 January 1654: ‘It is generally believed that he [i.e. Digby] has long held correspondence with Cromwell, and done him good offices.’ (Calendar of Clarendon Papers 2, 302.)

¹⁷ Joseph Jane’s assessment, 8 June 1655; in Nicholas Papers 2, 333.

¹⁸ White, letter (? to Digby), B.L. Add. M.S. 41846; cf. ‘Apology’, fols. 18, 21.

¹⁹ Ibid.; cf. ‘Apology’, fol. 21.

²⁰ ‘Apology’, fol. 21.

²¹ In this section, page references to The Grounds will be given in brackets in the text.

²² In seeing White’s response to the fashionable ‘crise Pyrrhonienne’ as the unifying factor for his various works, I am indebted to the work of Professor Richard H. Popkin: see especially his History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1979.

²³ Thomas, White, Apology for RuShworth’s Dialogues, Paris, 1654, 120.Google Scholar

²⁴ Note the interesting correspondence with the educational ideals of such Puritan reformers as Jan Amos Comenius: ‘Those in subordinate positions are to be enlightened, that they may know how to obey their rules wisely, and prudently: not by compulsion, nor obsequiously, like asses, but freely, moved by the love of order.’ (The Great Didactic, 1657, ch. 6, 9).

²⁵ This is one of the section-headings in Jenks’, God’s Safe Way of Obedience, London, 1872 Google Scholar; another is ‘The security of Blind Obedience proved by Scripture’. For a popular re-affirmation of the virtues of ‘Submission to God’s Will in respect of obedience’, see Anon. (? Richard Allestree), The Whole Duty of Man, London, 1659.

²⁶ While thus asserting the autonomy of human beings, White evidently accepts the Cartesian position, whereby animals, unlike men, are automata—‘like Clocks and other Engines.’ (Grounds, p.76).

²⁷ This emphasis is surely understandable, in view of the devastation of the recent civil wars: cf. e.g. Richard Baxter’s description of how ‘nothing appears to our sight, but ruin; families ruined; congregations ruined; sumptuous structures ruined; cities ruined; country ruined; court ruined, kingdom ruined…’ (The Saints’ Rest, 1649/50—quoted by N. H. Keeble, Richard Baxter: Puritan Man of Letters, Oxford, 1982, 95). In such a context, stable peace is the prime requirement—whoever provides it; and self-interest similarly dictated the later acceptance of a restored monarchy—‘the nation looking more to Charles Stuart out of love to themselves, not to him.’ (Ralph Josselin, Diary, 25 January 1660).

²⁸ This point is constantly reiterated, and is maintained by White even in his later ‘Apology’: cf. fol. 4, for example, where he insists that the ‘welfare of the people or subjects… must be the groundwork upon which both the Governor must build his action, and the subject his Obedience.’ Such radical views must have served to align him, in the eyes of some, with political extremists: cf. Richard Overton’s leveller pamphlet, A Remonstrance… 1646: ‘if kings would prove themselves lawful magistrates, they must prove themselves to be so by a lawful derivation of their authority which must be from the voluntary trust of the people.’ (Reprinted Hughes, A. ed., Seventeenth-Century England: A Changing Culture, London, 1980, 169f)Google Scholar

²⁹ The Grounds, Epistle Dedicatory.

³⁰ The letter is referred to, and quoted from, in the Encyclical Epistle of the Chapter, 20 October 1660, and is acknowledged as his by Leyburn himself in the Encyclical Answer of the following year. Leyburn’s letter to Andrew Knightley and Thomas Medcalfe (1657), included Tracts relating to Thomas White, 1657, 1660, is not, as the B.L. catalogue implies, concerned with The Grounds.

³¹ Encyclical Epistle, 7.

³² ‘Apology’, fol. 11.

³³ George Leyburn, Encyclical Answer, Douai, 1661, 37.

³⁴ Leyburn’s name appropriately heads the list of signatories to the declaration from the English College at Douai formally abominating and execrating The Grounds. For a transcript of the document, see Shanahan, D.. ‘The White Family of Hutton’, Essex Recusant 7–8, 1966, 71.Google Scholar

³⁵ William, Ball, State Maxims, London, 1656.Google Scholar The printed publication date is 1655, but the BL copy is corrected to 1656, and Fortescue gives 5 August 1656.

³⁶ State Maxims, 1.

³⁷ Ibid., 27–8.

³⁸ Grounds, 6.

³⁹ Richard Baxter, Works, ed. W. Orme, London, 1830, 1, 704.

⁴⁰ Richard, Baxter, Christian Directory, London, 1673, 2, 9 Google Scholar; Holy Commonwealth, London, 1659, 55.

⁴¹ Ibid. Addition to the Preface, 25–6. In the context of theology, and his generous attitude towards salvation, White was accused of ‘libertinism’ even by his friends: see e.g. John Belson’s response to White’s Statera Morum (London, 1660), which may be inferred from White’s letter in reply (Barrett/Belson Papers Q26/9).

⁴² Twenty-three pages are devoted specifically to The Grounds, compared with only thirteen and sixteen respectively assigned to Hobbes and Grotius.

⁴³ Roger, Coke, Justice Vindicated, London, 1660, 2, 53.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 3, 7–8.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 15, 21, 17.

⁴⁶ The intellectual level is indicated by Coke’s observation on Ground 10: ‘Indeed, herein (for aught I know) may be much Treasure and Learning; and there let it be, for I never intend to look into it.’ (Justice Vindicated, 20)

⁴⁷ William, Assheton, Evangelium Armatum, London, 1663, 58.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ B.L. Add. MS. 41846, f. 84.

⁴⁹ Ibid., f. 86:

⁵⁰ Calendar of Clarendon Papers 3, 216–217; 4, 56.

⁵¹ Peter, du Moulin, A Vindication of the Sincerity of the Protestant Religion, London, 1664, 61–3.Google Scholar

⁵² Nicholas Papers 3, 120.

⁵³ Calendar of Clarendon Papers 3, 158, 167.

⁵⁴ A Letter from a Gentleman, 1660, 39; in Tracts relating to Thomas White.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 24.

⁵⁶ Roger Palmer, The Catholique Apology, (originally published 1667), 1674 edn., 77–8, 82. White in fact withdrew to Holland at the Restoration, and finally returned to England in 1662.

⁵⁷ Robert Pugh (1610–1679), in furtherance of his opposition to White and the Blackloists, collected a series of allegedly incriminating letters, which was published, in 1680 just after his own death, as Blacklo’s Cabal. A facsimile edition, introduced by T. A. Birrell, was published by Gregg International Publishers Ltd., Farnborough, 1970.

⁵⁸ Old Brotherhood Archives 2, 141. Cf. Peter Talbot’s Blackloanae Haereses, 1675, 24, where The Grounds is described as ‘pessimum ilium maximeque haereticum… contra jus Regis exulantis, in favorem Cromwelli.’

⁵⁹ B.L. Add. 29612, f. 15b. Jenks failed to keep his resolution, and having read, with further distaste, White’s Middle State of Souls (London, 1659), wrote against it his A View of Mr. White’s Principles, London, 1712.

⁶⁰ Quoted by Shanahan, D., ‘The White Family of Hutton’, Essex Recusant 16, 1974, 94.Google Scholar

⁶¹ For evidence of these years see Anthony à Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, London, 1817, 1247; C. Dodd, A Church History of England, 1500–1688, Brussels, 1737, 3, 257. It is appropriate that one of his favourite debating-partners should have been Thomas Hobbes.

⁶² Pierre Bayle, Dictionary, transl. P. des Maizeaux, London, 1734–38, 340.

⁶³ The description is Percy Church’s, in a letter to Sir Edward Nicholas, dated Paris, 12 November 1655 (Nicholas Papers, 3, 120).