Liberty of Conscience and the Whitehall Debates of 1648–9

Carolyn Polizzotto

doi:10.1017/S0022046900060310

Liberty of Conscience and the Whitehall Debates of 1648–9

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011

Carolyn Polizzotto

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

As an episode in the history of Puritan ideas on liberty of conscience, the importance of the Whitehall Debates has long been acknowledged. Their publication at the end of the last century by Sir Charles Firth, who discovered them among the Clarke MSS., and their republication in the 1930s by A. S. P. Woodhouse, who made extensive additions to the original text, are evidence of their high regard. As Professor Woodhouse saw them, the Debates dealt with one of ‘the most significant issues of Puritan political thought:…the question of religious liberty’. Other historians have attributed even greater value to the Debates, acclaiming them as a major contribution to Puritan thought on this subject. W. K. Jordan, in his monumental study of religious toleration in England, hailed them as ‘momentous’; and, more recently, Christopher Hill has coupled them with the debates concerning James Nayler as ‘the two great set debates on religious toleration’ which survive from the revolutionary period. In view of this long-standing recognition, it is paradoxical that there exists no coherent and comprehensive discussion of the Debates: or rather, of the debate on 14 December 1648, this being the only day for which a detailed account survives. Although the arguments of various speakers have been summarised, no attempt has been made to offer an interpretation of the debate as a whole, on the grounds of the ‘confused and fragmentary’ state of the records.

Type: Articles
Information: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 69 - 82

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046900060310 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

^{page 69 note 1} Vol. 67 of the Clarke Papers, Worcester College, Oxford; Firth, C. H. (ed.), The Clarke Papers, London 1891–1901Google Scholar (Camden Society New Series nos. 49, 54, 61, 61), vol. ii; Woodhouse, A. S. P. (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty, London 1938.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 2} Op. cit., Introduction, 13.

^{page 69 note 3} Jordan, W. K., The Development of Religious Toleration in England, London 1932–1940, iii. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 4} Hill, C., The World Turned Upside Down, London 1972, 294.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 5} Cf. Jordan, Development of Religious Toleration, iii. 119–31; Brailsford, H. N., The Levellers and the English Revolution, London 1961, c. 19Google Scholar; Ashley, M., John Wildman, London 1947, 62–5Google Scholar; Haller, W., Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution, New York 1955, 321–7.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 6} Brailsford, The Levellers, 385; cf. Woodhouse, Introduction, 11–13.

^{page 70 note 1} Cf. Woodhouse on the necessity of extensive emendation ‘to present in an intelligible form’ the various arguments, ibid., 12.

^{page 70 note 2} Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughes, William Bridge, An Apologeticall Narration, London 1643/4.

^{page 70 note 3} [Adam Stewart], Some Observations and Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration, London 1644; Adam Stewart, The Second Part of the Dvply to M.S., London 1644.

^{page 70 note 4} [John Goodwin], M.S. to A.S. with a Plea for Libertie of Conscience in a Church Way, London 1644. The contemporary attribution of this work to Goodwin is upheld by Jordan, Development of Religious Toleration, iii. 380 n. 2; but queried by William Haller in Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution 1638–47, New York 1933–4, i. 52 n.40.

^{page 70 note 5} A Paraenetick, or Humble Addresse to the Parliament and Assembly for (not loose, but) Christian Libertie, London 1644. Wing's attribution of this tract to Roger Williams is unacceptable: Short-Title Catalogue, New York 1945–51, W2768.

^{page 70 note 6} [Roger Williams], The Blovdy Tenent, of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience, [London] 1644.

^{page 71 note 1} [William Walwyn], The Compassionate Samaritane, vnbinding the Conscience (Second Edition), London 1644/5. For the attribution of this work to Walwyn and for information concerning the first edition, see Haller, Tracts, i. 123–5.

^{page 71 note 2} [Henry Robinson], Liberty of Conscience, London 1643/4; [Henry Robinson], John the Baptist, [London 1644]. For the attribution of these works to Robinson, see Jordan, W. K., Men of Substance, Chicago 1942, 89–90.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} Ch[ristopher] Blackwood, The Storming of Antichrist, London 1644.

^{page 71 note 4} John Cotton, The Bloudy Tenent, Washed, London 1647.

^{page 71 note 5} George Gillespie, Wholsome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty, London 1645.

^{page 71 note 6} Thomas Edwards, The Casting Down of the Last and Strongest Hold of Satan, London 1647.

^{page 71 note 7} Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation against pretended Liberty of Conscience, London 1649.

^{page 72 note 1} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 117^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 105; Woodhouse 149.

^{page 72 note 2} See below, 73.

^{page 72 note 3} Gillespie, Wholsome Severity, e.g. 11.

^{page 72 note 4} For attribution of this work to Joshua Sprigge, and denial of Jordan's attribution of it to Francis Rous, see Keifer, B., ‘The Authorship of Ancient Bounds’, Church History, XXII (1953), 192–5.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 5} The Ancient Bounds, London 1645, 7–8.

^{page 72 note 6} See below, 77–8.

^{page 73 note 1} Jeremiah Burroughes, Irenicvum, to the Lovers of Truth and Peace, London 1646. Although the date printed on the title page is 1646, Thomason notes its date as 24 October 1645 (British Museum E. 366[9]).

^{page 73 note 2} See above, 70 n.2.

^{page 73 note 3} Ancient Bounds, 70–1.

^{page 73 note 4} [Richard Overton], The Araignement of Mr. Persecvtion, [London] 1645, 31. For evidence of Overton's authorship, see Haller, Tracts, i. 98.

^{page 73 note 5} An Ordinance presented to the Honourable House of Commons … For the Preventing of the Growing and Spreading of Heresies, [London 1646]. For its unauthorised publication, see A Vindication of a Printed Paper, London 1646, Ep. to Reader.

^{page 74 note 1} [John Goodwin], Some Modest and Humble Queries, London 1646; John Goodwin, Hagiomastix, or the Scourge of the Saints displayed, London 1646/7; John Goodwin, A Postscript, London [1647]; John Goodwin, A Candle to see the Sunne, London 1647.

^{page 74 note 2} Richard Overton, An Arrow against All Tyrants, London 1646.

^{page 74 note 3} See esp. A Vindication of a Printed Paper, London 1646, and Thomas Edwards, The Casting Down.

^{page 75 note 1} Published in mid-December by John Lilburne as Foundations of Freedom; or An Agreement of the People, London 1648.

^{page 75 note 2} See John Lilburne, The Legall Fundamentall Liberties of the People of England, London 1649, 32–4.

^{page 75 note 3} A Petition from His Excellency Thomas Lord Fairfax and the General Council of Officers of the Army to … Parliament … concerning the Draught of an Agreement of the People, London 1649.

^{page 75 note 4} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 (cf. vol. 16 for a summary of the conclusions reached). For details of the surviving accounts of the discussion on other days, see Woodhouse, 169–78, 467–71.

^{page 75 note 5} For their reasons for refusing, see A Serious and Faithfull Representation of the Judgements of Ministers of the Gospell within the Province of London, London 1649.

^{page 75 note 6} See above, 72 n.4.

^{page 75 note 7} See above, 70 n.2.

^{page 75 note 8} Legall Fundamentall Liberties, 31.

^{page 76 note 1} Ibid., 30–5.

^{page 76 note 2} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 108^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 73; Woodhouse, 125. The full account of the debate must not be confused with the summary of conclusions reached (see above, 75 n.4), which both Firth and Woodhouse place at the beginning of their printed versions of the debate: Clarke Papers, ii. 71–2; Woodhouse, 125.

^{page 76 note 3} [John Lilburne], Foundations of Freedom, 10. This may not have been the exact wording of the clause debated on 14 December, since Lilburne later acknowledged that, in publishing the Levellers’ draft, he ‘mended a clause in the first Reserve about Religion, to the sense of us all but Ireton’: Legall Fundamentall Liberties, 35. For suggestions as to what may have been altered, see Brailsford, The Levellers, 382.

^{page 76 note 4} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 108^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 73; Woodhouse, 126.

^{page 76 note 5} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 108^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 74; Woodhouse, 126.

^{page 76 note 6} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 109^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 75; Woodhouse, 127.

^{page 76 note 7} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 117^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 104; Woodhouse, 148.

^{page 77 note 1} Esp. by Colonel Thomas Harrison: Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fols. 114^r, 116^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 92, 100; Woodhouse, 140, 145. Cf. Clarke's note: ‘All. Calling for the Question’, Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 117^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 104; Woodhouse, 148.

^{page 77 note 2} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 115^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 98; Woodhouse, 144.

^{page 77 note 3} This may have been the point at which Lilburne ‘took his leave’ of the officers ‘for a pack of dissembling juggling Knaves’, and ceased to attend the Debates: Legall Fundamentall Liberties, 35.

^{page 77 note 4} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 117^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 105; Woodhouse, 149.

^{page 77 note 5} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 116^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 102; Woodhouse, 146–7.

^{page 78 note 1} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 117^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 105; Woodhouse, 149.

^{page 78 note 2} William Ashhurst, Reasons against Agreement, London 1648, 8.

^{page 78 note 3} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 117^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 105; Woodhouse, 149.

^{page 78 note 4} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 119^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 109; Woodhouse, 152.

^{page 78 note 5} E.g., Worcester MSS. vol. 67 117^v–118^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 105–6; Woodhouse, 149.

^{page 78 note 6} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 118^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 107; Woodhouse, 150.

^{page 79 note 1} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 119^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 109; Woodhouse, 152.

^{page 79 note 2} H. N. Brailsford has been the only commentator on the Debates to note the central role of the restrictive power question in the discussions on 14 December: The Levellers, 379–80, 386.

^{page 79 note 3} John Lilburne, A Plea for Common-Right and Freedom, London 1648, 3.

^{page 79 note 4} A Petition from His Excellency Thomas Lord Fairfax and the General Councel of Officers of the Army to … Parliament … concerning the Draught of an Agreement of the People, London 1649 24.

^{page 79 note 5} Ibid., 25.

^{page 79 note 6} John Lilburne, Englands New Chains discovered, London 1648/9, sig. A2r.

^{page 80 note 1} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 110^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 81; Woodhouse, 131–2.

^{page 80 note 2} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 116^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 100; Woodhouse, 145.

^{page 80 note 3} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 116^r–^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 101; Woodhouse, 145–6.

^{page 81 note 1} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 116^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 101; Woodhouse, 146.

^{page 81 note 2} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 121^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 115; Woodhouse, 156.

^{page 82 note 1} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fols. 121^v–122^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 117; Woodhouse, 158.

^{page 82 note 2} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 124^v; Clarke Papers, ii. 125; Woodhouse, 164.

^{page 82 note 3} Worcester MSS. vol. 67 fol. 127^r; Clarke Papers, ii. 131; Woodhouse, 169.

^{page 82 note 4} See above, 71 and n.7.

^{page 82 note 5} John Owen, A Sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons … on January 31 … with a Discourse about Toleration, London 1649.

^{page 82 note 6} A Necessary and Seasonable Testimony against Toleration … from the Commissioners of the Kirk of Scotland, London 1649.

^{page 82 note 7} Cf. Roger Williams, The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody, London 1652; Zeal Examined, London 1652; Thomas Cobbet, The Civil Magistrates Power in Matters of Religion, London 1653; Master John Goodwins Queres questioned, London 1653.

^{page 82 note 8} John Milton, A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes, London 1659,47.

Article contents

Liberty of Conscience and the Whitehall Debates of 1648–9

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests