Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:38:45.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rendering unto Caesar in the Age of Revolution: William Sherlock and William of Orange

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2008

KENNETH PADLEY
KENNETH PADLEY
Affiliation:
Anglican Chaplaincy, Prince's Road, Bangor LL57 2BD; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The events of 1688–9 forced English clergy to re-examine their understanding of the Divine Right of Kings. One solution was to distinguish between de facto and de iure kingship and maintain dual loyalty to James and William. Another involved shifting from ‘legitimist’ arguments towards a more immediate view of Providence. William Sherlock expounded both positions between 1689 and 1690. This article uses under-utilised manuscripts to show how, why and when his thought moved away from de iure and towards de facto expressions of Divine Right and hence became a cause célèbre for the Orange regime and a nightmare for the non-jurors.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 680 - 696
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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 ‘The Vicar of Bray’, in Percy C. Buck (ed.), The Oxford song book, London 1962, i. 186–7.

2 Dodds, W. M. T., ‘Robert South and William Sherlock: some unpublished letters’, Modern Languages Review xxxix (1944), 215–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 ODNB, s.v. Wagstaffe, Thomas (1645–1712) and Wagstaffe, Thomas (1692–1770). Internal evidence in ms Bodl. Add.c.180 clearly points to Wagstaffe, Sr's role in assembling the papers. Most important, the writer of the manuscript identifies himself (p. 87) with the anonymous author of An answer to a late pamphlet, intituled, obedience and submission, London 1690 (Wing W.202); this pamphlet is attributed to Wagstaffe. It also seems significant that Wagstaffe, Jr's catalogue, beginning on p. iii, and dated ‘Aprill 23 1713’ was written six months after the death of Wagstaffe, Sr, presumably the point at which the material changed hands. My transcript of the key parts of ms Bodl. Add.c.180, with a few personal notes in square brackets, is available on www.kennethpadley.com

4 William Sherlock, The case of allegiance due to soveraign powers stated and resolved, Exeter 1979, facsimile of Wing S.3273, prefatory note. Although largely uncommented upon, several other copies of Sherlock's letter to Sancroft are extant, for example in ms Bodl. Rawl D 836, fo. 189rf, and Lloyd's copy in St John's College, Cambridge, S.21 (James 414). See also Goldie, Mark, ‘The revolution of 1689 and the structure of political argument’, Bulletin for Research in the Humanities lxxxiii (1980), 480Google Scholar.

5 McLaren, Anne, ‘Rethinking republicanism: Vindiciae, contra tyrannos in context’, HJ xlix (2006), 23–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnston, Warren, ‘Revelation and the revolution of 1688–1689’, HJ xlviii (2005), 351–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tim Harris, Revolution: the great crisis of the British monarchy, 1685–1720, London 2006, esp. pp. 1–36, 477–517.

6 ODNB, s.v. Sherlock, William; D. D. Wallace, Puritans and predestination, Chapel Hill 1982, 170f; William Sherlock, A vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity, London 1691 (Wing S.3777), esp. pp. 48–58; [Robert South], Tritheism charged upon dr Sherlock's new notion of the Trinity, London 1695 (Wing S.4744); T. J. Fawcett, The liturgy of comprehension, 1689, Southend-on-Sea 1973, 169; Gibson, William, ‘William Talbot and church parties, 1688–1730’, this Journal lviii (2007), 26–48Google Scholar.

7 J. N. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings, Cambridge 1914, 5–6; J. C. Findon, ‘The nonjurors and the Church of England, 1689–1716’, unpubl. DPhil. diss. Oxford 1978, 126f; G. V. Bennett, The Tory crisis in Church and State, 1688–1730, Oxford 1975, 103–5.

8 F. Turner, A sermon preached before their majesties, London 1685 (Wing T.3288), 1.

9 Ibid.. 4, 23–6. It is not insignificant that Francis Turner, after expressing strong loyalty to James on legitimist Divine Right grounds, was to refuse the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary. Nor is it coincidental that he became a non-juror alongside his brother, Thomas, a man who plays a cameo role later in this article.

10 [F. Rous], The lawfulnes of obeying the present government, London 1649 (Wing R.2020), 12; Quentin Skinner, ‘Conquest and consent: Thomas Hobbes and the Engagement’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum, London 1972, 79–98 at p. 84.

11 Bennett, Tory crisis, 105.

12 The Revolution allegiance dilemma reinforces the argument of Glenn Burgess against Neville Figgis that the political function of Divine Right was principally to engender obedience and not to strengthen royal absolutism: ‘The divine right of kings reconsidered’, EHR cvii (1992), 837–61.

13 William Sherlock, The case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved, London 1684 (Wing S.3267), 29–30.

14 Ibid.. 128.

15 Ibid.. 129, and Allegiance, A3r.

16 Idem, Resistance, 211.

17 This is quoted in Mark Goldie, ‘The political thought of the Anglican Revolution’, in Robert Beddard (ed.), The revolutions of 1688, Oxford 1991, 102–36 at p. 113; Sherlock, Resistance, 57.

18 Goldie, ‘Political thought’, 102, 113f; ODNB, s.v. Sherlock, William; McIlhiney, D. B., ‘The Protestantism of the Caroline divines’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church xliv (1975), 143–52Google Scholar; Harris, Revolution, chs v–vi, esp. pp. 258–63.

19 Beddard, Robert, ‘Observations of a London clergyman on the Revolution of 1688–1689: being an excerpt from the autobiography of Dr William Wake’, Guildhall Miscellany ii (1967), 414Google Scholar.

20 Robert South to William Sherlock, 19 Feb.1690, quoted in Dodds, ‘South and Sherlock’, 218.

21 [William Sherlock], ‘A letter to a member of the convention’, in A collection of scarce and valuable tracts, ed. Walter Scott, x, London 1813, 187.

22 Ibid.. 190. See also Harris, Revolution, 319–20, 326.

23 i William & Mary cap. 8; Findon, ‘Nonjurors’, 60–75; ms Bodl. Eng. Hist.d.1 (29781), pp. 10–11; Dodds, ‘South and Sherlock’, 215f; ms Bodl. Add.c.180, pp. 181–97. The precise date when Sherlock gave South his pro-oath papers is not possible to gauge, but a date around May 1689 is probable.

24 ms Bodl. Add.c.180, p. 181.

25 Ibid.. p. 182.

26 Ibid.. p. 183.

27 Ibid.. p. 184.

28 Ibid.. p. 185.

29 Ibid.. pp. 185–8.

30 Ibid.. pp. 188–9.

31 Ibid.. p. 193.

32 Ibid.. pp. 194–7.

33 Findon, ‘Nonjurors’, 43–4, 136–7.

34 ms. Bodl. Eng. Hist.d.1 (29781), p. 10.

35 Ibid.. I have yet to locate Sherlock's anti-oath papers of July 1689. They would make fascinating comparison with his views of a few months earlier.

36 Ibid.. pp. 9–13; Dodds, ‘South and Sherlock’, 215–20; ODNB, s.v. Sherlock, William, and South, Robert.

37 ODNB, s.v. Sherlock, William; Goldie, ‘Revolution’, 506; Sherlock, Allegiance, preface; C. F. Mullett, ‘A case of allegiance: William Sherlock and the Revolution of 1688’, Huntington Library Quarterly x (1946–7), 85–6.

38 ms Bodl. Add.c.180, p. 102. The second figure is almost certainly Thomas Turner, brother of Bishop Francis. In Findon's appendix of non-jurors there is no individual, alive in July 1690, who has a doctorate and a surname beginning with ‘C’ and ending with ‘r’; the most likely candidate for ‘Dr Cr’ seems to be Jeremy Collier.

39 Ibid.. pp. 103–5.

40 Ibid.. pp. 81, 87. See ms Bodl. Eng. Hist.d.1 (29781), p. 34, for further evidence of Lloyd's keen interest in Sherlock's machinations.

41 ms Bodl. Add. c.180, p. 81.

42 Judges iii.12f; 1 Kings xix.16; 2 Kings xi; ms Bodl. Add. c.180, pp. 82–4.

43 ms Bodl. Add. c.180, p. 84.

44 Ibid.. pp. 84–6.

45 Sherlock, Allegiance, 3–10.

46 Ibid.. preface.

47 ms Bodl. Add. c.180, pp. 87–93.

48 Ibid.. p. 93, quoting John Overall, Bishop Overall's Convocation book MDCVI, London 1690 (Wing O.607, 65).

49 ms Bodl. Add. c.180, p. 87.

50 [Wagstaffe], Answer to obedience and submission, 6–12.

51 Ibid.. 18.

52 Ibid.. 20 and postscript, 3; William Sherlock, A vindication of the Case of Allegiance due to soveraign powers London 1691 (Wing S.3375), 7. On the seriousness with which the disputants continued to take Jaddus see also William Lloyd, A letter to dr. Sherlock in vindication of that part of Josephus's history, which gives an account of Iaddus, London 1691 (Wing L.2686).

53 See, for example, Goldie, ‘Revolution’, 477–85; Mullett, ‘Allegiance’, 83–103.

54 Findon, ‘Nonjurors’, 51, 138.