A case of conscience unresolved the Commonwealth of England's engagement and political debate, 1649-52

Abstract

This work examines the controversy which occurred principally as a result of the Engagement oath promulgated by the newly established Commonwealth of England. In the first instance it is an attempt to provide a taxonomy, a full account of the arguments which were adduced by both the proponents and opponents of subscription. Unlike previous examinations of this topic, this dissertation does not focus exclusively upon those aspects of the engagers' arguments which set them apart from the conventional modes of political discourse. Such a concentration is unable to account adequately for the level of controversy which ensued, nor for the substantial areas of agreement and disagreement which developed between the controversialists. It is concluded that the controversy is better understood when placed in the wider context of conflicts of obligation. With some notable exceptions, disagreement largely centered not upon the general problem of obedience to unlawful or de facto powers, but rather upon the extent of an individual's obligations, and in particular the vexed problems of oath-taking and binding oneself by promises or promisory-like performances. Both engagers and anti-engagers actively sought guidance on what might authorize their actions, and in a society in which the modes of legitimation were predominantly juristic, their first inclination was to attempt to operate as best they could within the conventional constitutional and legalistic framework. By an examination of the practices of oath-taking and promise-keeping, advocates of subscription attempted to demonstrate how Englishmen might comply with the Common wealth's demands. They also tried to argue that the Commonwealth was authorized to administer an engagement and that subscription to loyalty oaths or promises of obedience was a duty owed by subjects to any regime which ruled effectively. Invariably this involved extending the traditional modes of legitimation. Often engagers produced less orthodox (but no less juristic), accounts of government legitimacy and subject obedience. Finally, when the prospects for eliciting further convincing accounts of obligation from the available paradigms, both conventional and unorthodox, appeared limited, engagers were driven to reconstruct political authority and obligation (including the practice of loyalty oaths), for themselves from a consideration of the ends of political society.