¹ For some examples of this opposition see the articles aimed against Christopher Hill published in Webster, Charles (ed), The intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century, London, 1974.Google Scholar These are by Kearney, H. F., 218–42 and 254–61Google Scholar; Rabb, T. K., 262–79 and 284–85Google Scholar; and Shapiro, B. J., 286–316.Google Scholar See also Mulligan, Lotte, ‘Puritans and English science: a critique of Webster’, Isis, 1980, 71, 456–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Merton, R. K., Science, technology and society in seventeenth-century England, Hassocks and Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1970.Google Scholar This is a re-issue of the 1938 paper which appeared in Osiris, 1938, 4, 414–565.Google Scholar

³ The major instruments of this entrenchment are Hill, Christopher, The intellectual origins of the English revolution, Oxford, 1965Google Scholar; and Webster, Charles, The Great Instauration, science, medicine and reform, 1626–1660, London, 1975.Google Scholar

⁴ Hill, Christopher, ‘Puritanism, capitalism and the scientific revolution’Google Scholar, in Webster, C., op. cit. (1), pp. 243–53, 252.Google Scholar

⁵ Webster, C., op. cit. (3), p. 504.Google Scholar

⁶ Webster, C., ‘Richard Towneley (1629–1707), the Towneley group and seventeenth-century science’, Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1966, 118, 51–76, on p. 75–6.Google Scholar

⁷ Webster, C., op. cit. (3), p. 485.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., p. 503–4.

⁹ Ibid., p. 504.

¹⁰ The Blackloists played an important part in the history of English Catholicism but, in spite of this, they have largely been ignored by historians. Even their leader, Thomas White, is surprisingly little studied in view of his stature among his contemporaries. There are a number of brief treatments of his life and work in published sources. These include: Dodd, Charles, The Church history of England, Brussels, 1742, iii, 285–8 and 350–6Google Scholar; Jones, H. W., ‘Thomas White (or Blacklo), 1593–1676: new data’, Notes and queries, 1973, 10, 381–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anstruther, G., The seminary priests: a dictionary oj the secular clergy of England and Wales, 1588–1850, Great Wakering, 1975, ii, 348–54Google Scholar; and the Dictionary of national biography. However, these should be supplemented by three unpublished theses which go a long way towards establishing the full significance of White and his followers. These are: Bradley, R. I., ‘Blacklo: an essay in counter-reform’, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1963Google Scholar; Lewis, J. M., ‘Hobbes and the Blackloists: a study in the eschatology of the English revolution’, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1976Google Scholar; and Southgate, B. C., ‘The life and work of Thomas White, 1593–1676’, Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1979.Google Scholar I must acknowledge an intellectual debt to the last two of these in particular: I have drawn heavily upon them in this paper.

The other known members of the Blackloists are, with one exception, even more obscure: Henry Holden (1596–1662), Peter Fitton (1602–1657), E. Tyrrel (1621–76), and H. Ellis (d. 1676). There is some information about these thinkers in Anstruther's dictionary cited above. The only other member of the group to make a name for himself is also little studied: John Sergeant (1621–1707). John Sergeant was an ardent controversialist who came to the fore after the Restoration. I hope to examine the later fortunes of the Blackloists and the ideas of Sergeant in a forthcoming paper. Meanwhile, the best treatment of his thought can be found in Tavard, G. H., The seventeenth-century tradition: a study in recusant thought, Leiden, 1978, 219–45Google Scholar (see also pp. 180–96 for a discussion of Henry Holden).

¹¹ White, Thomas, De mundo dialoghi tres, Paris, 1642.Google ScholarHobbes, Thomas, Critique du De mundo de Thomas White, edited by Jacquot, J. and Jones, H. W., Paris, 1973.Google Scholar There is an English translation by Jones, H. W.: Hobbes, Thomas, Thomas White's De mundo examined, London, 1976.Google Scholar

¹² For a discussion of White's mechanical philosophy see Southgate, , op. cit. (10), 346–403.Google Scholar On White's influence upon Digby see Petersson, R. T., Sir Kenelm Digby: the ornament of England, 1603–1665, London, 1956, p. 342.Google Scholar

¹³ SirDigby, Kenelm, Two treatises. In the one of which the nature of bodies; in the other the nature of mans soule is looked into: in way of the discovery of the immortality of reasonable soules, Paris, 1644Google Scholar; reprinted in facsimile, New York and London, 1978. Hereafter cited as: Digby, , Treatises.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Descartes, René, Principia philosophiae, Amsterdam, 1644.Google Scholar This can be consulted in Oeuvres, edited by Tannery, A., Paris, 1905, vol. viii.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lasswitz, K., Geschichte der Atomistik vom Mittel alter bis Newton, 2 vols., Hamburg and Leipzig, 1890, ii, 188–207Google Scholar; Kargon, R. H., Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton, Oxford, 1966, pp. 70–3Google Scholar; and Dobbs, B. J. T., ‘Studies in the natural philosophy of Sir Kenelm Digby’, Ambix, 1971, 18, 1–25; 1973, 20, 143–63; 1974, 21, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁶ Dobbs, B. J. T., op. cit. (15), Part I, p.6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Digby, , Treatises, p. 343.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ For general indications of the vitality of Aristotelianism during the ‘scientific revolution’ see Schmitt, C. B., ‘Towards a re-assessment of renaissance Aristotelianism’, History of Science, 1973, 11, 159–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Pagel, W., ‘The reaction to Aristotle in seventeenth-century biological thought’, in Underwood, E. A. (ed.), Science, medicine and history: essays on the evolution of scientific thought and medical practice written in honour of Charles Singer, 2 vols., London, 1953, i, 489–509.Google Scholar

²⁰ van Melsen, A. G., From atomos to atom, New York, 1960, pp. 41–4, 46–8 and 58–76Google Scholar; Dijksterhuis, E. J., The mechanisation of the world picture, Oxford, 1961, pp. 200–9, 277–9Google Scholar; and Zubov, V. P., ‘Zur Geschichte des Kampfes Zwischen dem Atomismus und dem Aristotelismus im 17 Jahrhundert (minima naturalia und mixtro)’, in Harig, G. (ed.), Sowjetische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft, Berlin, 1960, 161–91.Google Scholar

²¹ It is worth remembering in this context that F. Brandt concluded that the biggest influence on Hobbes' early mechanism was Aristotle. See Brandt, F., Thomas Hobbes' mechanical conception of nature, Copenhagen and London, 1928, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar

²² For their connections with Mersenne's circle consult the index to Mersenne, M., Correspondance, edited by Tannery, P. and de Waard, C., 13 vols., Paris, 1955–1977.Google Scholar On the influence of Galileo see note 12 above. Indications of their close association with Hobbes have been given above in note 11. Digby discusses an atomist argument of Gassendi's which was unpublished at the time in Two treatises pp. 154–5. For Descartes' reactions to Digby and White consult the index of Descartes, R., Correspondance, edited by Adam, C. and Milhaud, G., 8 vols., Paris, 1936–1963.Google Scholar

²³ There are a number of sources for Digby's biography besides the useful Biographia britannica and Dictionary of national biography articles. These include Bligh, E. W., Sir Kenelm Digby and his Venetia, London, 1932Google Scholar; Fulton, J. F., Sir Kenelm Digby: writer, bibliophile and protagonist of William Harvey, New York, 1937Google Scholar; Gabrieli, V., Sir Kenelm Digby: un inglese italianato nell' eta della controriforma, Rome, 1957Google Scholar; but still the fullest is Petersson, R. T., op. cit. (12)Google Scholar. I will restrict my references on bibliographical details to this last work. On Digby's conversion to Anglicanism and return to Catholicism see idem, p. 94.

²⁴ Letter from Digby, to White, , 25 02 1650Google Scholar, reprinted in Pugh, R., Blacklo's cabal (full citation given in note 91 below, p. 93.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Lewis, J. M., op. cit. (10)Google Scholar for the only attempt to assess this partnership so far.

²⁶ Tyacke, Nicholas, ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and counter-revolution’, in Russell, Conrad (ed.), The Origins of the English civil war, London, 1973, 119–43, on p. 130, 134 and 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Chillingworth, William, An account of what moved the author to turn Papist, with his confutation of the arguments that persuaded him thereto, in Works, London, 1719.Google Scholar See also Orr, R. R., Reason and authority: the thought of William Chillingworth, London, 1967, especially chapter 1, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar The reasons for this temporary softening of attitude are no doubt complex and, as far as I am aware, have not received sufficient analysis from historians. No doubt the rise of Arminianism played some role; see Tyacke, , op. cit. (26)Google Scholar and Dockery, J. B., Christopher Davenport,friar and diplomat, London, 1960, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar

²⁸ Panzani, Gregorio, The memoirs of G. Panzoni giving an account of his agency in England in the years 1634, 1635, 1636. Translated and edited by Berington, J., Birmingham, 1793.Google Scholar See especially pp. 165–6, 172, 176.

²⁹ Franciscus, a Sancta Clara [Davenport, Christopher], Deus, Natura, Gratia, sive tractatus de praedestinatione, de meritis & peccatorum remissione, seu de iustificatione & denique de sanctorum in vocatione, Ubi ad trutinam fidei catholicae examinatur confessio anglicana etc., Lyon, 1634.Google Scholar For a complete study of Christopher Davenport see Dockery, J. B., op. cit. (27)Google Scholar. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with Deus, Natura, Gratia, pp. 62–93Google Scholar, and see also Appendix D, pp. 146–49. For a brief contemporary account of Davenport's work see Baxter, Richard, A key for catholics to open the juggling of the Jesuits… a new edition revised by Allport, J., London, 1839, pp. 307–16.Google Scholar

³⁰ Sergeant, John, An account of the Chapter erected by William, titular Bishop of Chalcedon, and ordinary in England and Scotland, with preface and notes by W. Turnbull, London, 1853.Google Scholar

³¹ Letter from Laud, to Digby, , 03 27 1636.Google Scholar Reprinted in Laud, William, The history of the troubles and tryal of the most reverend Father in God, and blessed martyr, William Laud, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury… edited by Wharton, Henry, London, 1695, p. 610.Google Scholar

³² In that year, or perhaps earlier, White and Chillingworth debated Catholic infallibility in Digby's lodgings. See Digby, George, Letters between the Lord George Digby and Sir Kenelm Digby kt. concerning religion, London, 1651, p. 85.Google Scholar Thomas Birch in his ‘Life’ of Chillingworth dates this meeting in 1635, Chillingworth, , Works, London, 1820, pp. 4–7Google Scholar, but Lewis, , op. cit. (10)Google Scholar argues that it must have been between july 1637 and January 1638, p. 60.

³³ Southgate, B. C., op. cit. (10), p. 1 and passim.Google Scholar

³⁴ White, Thomas, Religion and reason, mutually corresponding and assisting each other, Paris, 1660, p. 25.Google Scholar

³⁵ White, Thomas, A letter to a person of honour… in vindication of himself and his doctrine, 1659 unpaginated [p. 18].Google Scholar

³⁶ White, Thomas, An answer to the Lord Faulklands discourse of infallibility, reprinted in Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, A discourse of infallibility, with Mr. White's answer to it, and a reply to him, second edition, London, 1660, p. 4.Google Scholar White's answer was first published in 1651 but must have been written prior to 1637, see Lewis, , op. cit. (10), 59.Google Scholar

³⁷ Digby, Kenelm, Conference with a Lady about choice of religion, Paris, 1638, reprinted London, 1969, pp. 109–10.Google Scholar

³⁸ See note 36 above and: Chillingworth, William, A discourse concerning tradition (i.e. an answer to some passages in Rushworth's dialogues. Beginning at the third dialogue, 12 p. 181… about traditions), in Works, London, 1719.Google ScholarThe dialogues of William Richworth [Rushworth] or the judgement of common sense in the choice of religion, Paris, 1640, were seen through the press by Thomas White. See Tavard, G. H., op. cit. (10), 158–79Google Scholar and Southgate, B. C., ‘A note on the authorship of Rushworth's Dialogues', Notes and queries, 1981, 28, pp. 207–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ See note 32 above.

⁴⁰ Cary, Lucius, Reply, p. 65, 82, 187.Google Scholar Another important aspect of the debate between Falkland and Chillingworth on the one hand, and White and Digby on the other, arose from the rational scepticism of the two Protestants, as opposed to the firm belief in the possibility of absolute knowledge professed by the two Catholics. I do not intend to deal with this here but see Southgate, , op. cit. (10)Google Scholar, chapters 5, 6, 9 and passim. For the background to the scepticism of Falkland and Chillingworth see McAdoo, H. R., The spirit of Anglicanism: a survey of Anglican theological method in the seventeenth century, London, 1965, chapter 1, pp. 1–23Google Scholar; Popkin, R. H., The history of scepticism from Erasmus to Descartes, revised edition, New York, 1968Google Scholar; and van Leeuwen, H. G., The problem of certainty in English thought, 1630–1690, The Hague, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ White, Thomas, Peripatetical institutions: in the way of… Sr. Kenelm Digby: the theoricall part, London, 1656, p. 196.Google Scholar This work first appeared in Latin: Institutionum peripateticarum, Lyon, 1646.Google Scholar As the title indicates, White draws heavily upon Digby's Treatise but he expands the scope of his own work to include cosmological, meteorological and geographical phenomena.

⁴² White, Thomas, Apology for Rushworth's dialogues, Paris, 1654, pp. 64–6.Google Scholar

⁴³ Interest in this topic seems to have been inspired by the pioneering work of Norman (John in 1957, now re-issued as Cohn, Norman, The pursuit of the millennium: revolutionary millenarians and mystical anarchists of the middle ages, revised and expanded edition, London, 1970.Google Scholar Works which concentrate on these themes in seventeenth-century England include: Wilson, J. F., Pulpit in Parliament: Puritanism during the English civil wars, 1640–1648, Princeton, 1969Google Scholar; Lamont, W. M., Godly rule: politics and religion 1603–1660, London, 1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Toon, Peter (ed.), Puritans, the millennium, and the future of Israel: Puritan eschatology 1600 to 1660, Cambridge and London, 1970Google Scholar; Hill, Christopher, Antichrist in seventeenth-century England, London, 1971Google Scholar; Capp, B. S., The Fifth Monarchy men: a study in seventeenth-century English millenarianism, London, 1972Google Scholar; Christiansen, P., Reformers and Babylon: English apocalyptic visions from the reformation to the eve of the civil war, Toronto, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Firth, K. R., The apocalyptic tradition in reformation Britain, 1530–1645, Oxford, 1979.Google Scholar See also the debate between Capp, B. S. and Lamont, W. M. in Charles Webster (ed.), op. cit. (1), pp. 386–434.Google Scholar For the relevance of these ideas to the history of science see Webster, , op. cit. (3), chapter 1, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar In this paper I hope to show that Webster's view is somewhat one-sided. See below, pp. 234–36.

⁴⁴ Pocock, J. G. A., ‘Time, history and eschatology in the thought of Thomas Hobbes’, in Elliot, J. H. and Koenigsberger, H. G. (eds.), The diversity of history: essays in honour of Sir Herbert Butterfield, London, 1970, 149–98Google Scholar, now reprinted in Pocock, J. G. A., Politics, language and time: essays on political thought and history, London, 1972, 148–201.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Chillingworth, , Discourse concerning tradition (full citation in note 38), p. 33.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., 33, 34.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 34.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 36.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 37.

⁵⁰ See, for example, Taylor, Jeremy, The liberty of prophesying, London, 1648, pp. 84–5Google Scholar, where he denies the authority of Papias and other early chiliasts. The unorthodoxy of these ideas may also explain why Chillingworth's refutation of White remained unpublished during his life-time. See also below, pp 234–36.

³¹ Calvin, Jean, Institutes of the Christian religion, translated by Allen, John, 3 vols., London, 1813.Google Scholar Book III, chapter 25, section 6, p. 478. It is not necessary to distinguish here between the Calvinist and Arminian or Laudian Anglicans who have been delineated by Tyacke, Nicholas, op. cit. (26)Google Scholar. Tyacke points out that Anglicanism in the early part of the seventeenth century was doctrinally Calvinist, 119–29 (see also McAdoo, , op. cit. (40), pp. 21, 24–30)Google Scholar, but this was superseded by Arminianism with the rise of the Laudian faction, after Charles I came to the throne. The Arminian rejection of Calvinist doctrine was centred on predestination, however, and it seems that Laudian Anglicans did not diller from Calvin on the issues of eschatology. This is certainly the case with Jeremy Taylor, cited below, and is also true of Henry Hammond, one of the leading Laudians. Hammond, H., The Works, 4 volumes edited by Fulman, W., London, 1684, i, 703Google Scholar; iii, 363, 855–61. On Hammond see Packer, J. W., The transformation of Anglicanism, 1643–1660, with special reference to Henry Hammond, Manchester, 1969.Google Scholar

⁵² Luke, , 23, 43.Google Scholar

⁵³ Luke, , 16, 22.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Taylor, Jeremy, The great exemplar of sanctity and holy life according to the Christian institution, London, 1649, p. 170.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The possibility of a reprieve would have to be ruled out to avoid similarities with the Catholic concept of purgatory.

⁵⁶ Taylor, Jeremy, Great examplar, p. 171.Google Scholar This notion was regarded as heretical, however, in Edwards, Thomas, The third part of Gangraena, or a new and higher discovery of the errors, heresies, blasphemies, and insolent proceedings of the sectaries of these times…, London, 1646, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Burns, Norman T., Christian mortalism from Tyndale to Milton, Cambridge, Mass., 1972, p. 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where he quotes, for example, More, Thomas, A dyalogue of Syr Thomas More Knyghte, London, 1529, pp. 276, 279.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Charles Webster refers to the tradition of ‘providential history’, op. cit. (3), 1–6.

⁵⁹ See above p. 217 and Southgate, , op. cit. (10), p. 1Google Scholar and passim. White continually emphasized the use of reason in order to get at the truths of scripture and tradition. This can be seen in the titles of two of his works: Religion and reason mutually corresponding and assisting each other, Paris, 1660?; and Devotion and reason. First essay wherein modern devotion for the dead is brought to solid principles and made rational, Paris, 1661. White, like others in the seventeenth century (notably Hobbes and Descartes) believed that rigorous reasoning could be ensured by following the axiomatic method of Euclidean geometry. There are numerous examples of this method in the work of White. Perhaps the most interesting example for the historian of science is his Appendicula tentans solutionem problematis Toricelliani de subsistentia hydrargyri in tubo superne sigillato, London?, 1663 (appended to Scirri, see note 114 below). But see also his Euclides physicus, sive de principiis naturae, stoecheida etc…, London 1657; and Euclides metaphysicus, sive de principiis sapientiae, stoecheida etc…, London, 1658. For a fuller discussion of this aspect of White's work see Jones, H. W., ‘Leibniz' cosmology and Thomas White's Euclides physicus’, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, 1975, 25, pp. 277–303.Google Scholar For a general survey of this important topic see Schüling, H., Die Geschichte der axiomatischen Methode in 16 und beginnenden 17 Jahrhundert, Hildesheim, 1969.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Digby, , Treatises, sig. ã iv.Google Scholar

⁶¹ SirDigby, Kenelm, Observations upon Religio medici, London, 1643.Google Scholar The work is dated December 23, 1642. It is, of course, a response to SirBrowne, Thomas, Religio medici, London, 1643.Google Scholar See Wise, J. H., Sir Thomas Browne's ‘Religio medici’ and two seventeenth-century critics, Columbia, Missouri, 1973, pp. 57–121.Google Scholar

⁶² Digby, , Observations, pp. 10, 11–12.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., 12. For a discussion of the extent of Browne's mortalism see Burns, , op. cit. (57), 150–53.Google Scholar There is not much to go on, other than Browne's own brief statement in Religio media. See Browne, Thomas, Works, edited by Keynes, G., London, 1928, i, 16.Google Scholar Digby was not alone in attributing mortalism to Browne, however. Henry Power, in a letter to Browne (February 10, 1647) regarded Browne's talk of the ‘reindividualling of an incinerated plant’ (cf. Works, i, 59) as a ‘notable illustration of that psychopanuchy which antiquity so generally received, how these forms of ours may be lulled and ly asleepe after the separation untill that great and generall day…’ See Halliwell, J. O. (ed.), A collection of letters illustrative of the progress of science in England, London, 1841Google Scholar, reprinted Hamden, Conneticut, 1965, p. 92.

⁶⁴ Digby, , Treatises, sig. ō vi.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ibid., sig. ū.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 443–45.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 445.

⁶⁸ Digby, , Observations, p. 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid., 41.

⁷⁰ Unfortunately, Digby never explicitly considers how a soul can be purged when it is conjoined to the body. It is fairly clear, however, that he believes the soul to become capable of change in some way while established in the body.

⁷¹ Digby, , Observations, p. 13.Google Scholar

⁷² White, Thomas, Villicationis suae de medio animarum statu ratio episcopo Chalcedonensi reddito a Thoma Anglo…, Paris, 1653.Google Scholar This appeared in English as: The middle state of souls from the hour of death to the day of Judgement, 1659, and this edition has been used here. The ideas expressed in this work are re-iterated throughout White's subsequent work. See especially: The state of the future life, and the presents order to it, London, 1654, and Notes on Mr. F. D.'s result of a dialogue concerning the middle state of souls, Paris, 1660.

⁷³ White, , Middle state, p. 37.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid., p. 260.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 97.

⁷⁶ In fact, White and Digby have been accused of mortalism from time to time. Alexander Ross wrote against Digby and Richard Overton, a notorious mortalist, in the same work: The philosophical touchstone: or observations upon Sir Kenelm Digbie's discourse of the nature of bodies and of the reasonable soul… and the weak fortifications of a late Amsterdam ingeneer [Richard Overton] patronising the soules mortality briefly slighted, London, 1645. The fullest treatment of White's eschatology before Lewis, , op. cit. (10)Google Scholar, saw him as a mortalist: Blackburne, Francis, An historical view of the controversy concerning an intermediate state and the separate existence of the soul between the death and the general resurrection, deduced from the beginning of the Protestant reformation to the present times. The second edition, corrected and greatly enlarged, London, 1772, p. 115.Google Scholar See also Patrides, C. A., Milton and the Christian tradition, Oxford, 1966, pp. 264–5.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ White, , Middle state, p. 153.Google Scholar Cf. note 71 above. White's psychological interpretation of the suffering endured by the soul after death is very similar to the view expressed by the ranter Bauthumley, Jacob in The light and dark sides of God, London, 1650.Google Scholar See Burns, N. T., op. cit. (57), p. 84Google Scholar; and Cohn, , op. cit. (43), pp. 305–6.Google Scholar Such ideas were fairly common among the radical protestant sects according to Hill, Christopher, The world turned upside down: radical ideas during the English revolution, Harmondsworth, 1975, pp. 175, 177.Google Scholar This gives further confirmation of my argument that White's theology was capable of absorbing radical ideas and integrating them with more orthodox beliefs. It should be remarked, however, that these ideas were not totally revolutionary but can be traced back to Origen and other early Fathers. See Walker, D. P., The decline of hell: seventeenth-century discussions of eternal torment, London, 1964, 61–3.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ White, , Middle state, 103–4.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid., 154.

⁸⁰ Ibid., 260.

⁸¹ Ibid., 5–6.

⁸² That White hoped to convince his fellow Catholics as much as Protestants is evident from his dedication of the book to Richard Smith, the Bishop of Chalcedon.

⁸³ Thomas, Keith, Religion and the decline of magic, Harmondsworth, 1973, p. 703.Google Scholar Also Southgate, , op. cit. (10), 251–2.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ White, , Middle state, 196.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid., 186 and 205–6. Southgate, , op. ci t (10), 255–6.Google ScholarStubbe, Henry, A censure upon certaine passages contained in the History of the Royal Society, Oxford, 1670, 8Google Scholar, singles out indulgences as a ‘primary occasion’ of the Reformation.

⁸⁶ The most detailed sources so far are Bradley, , op. cit. (10)Google Scholar; Southgate, , op. cit. (10)Google Scholar; Lewis, , op. cit. (10)Google Scholar; and Petersson, , op. cit. (12).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Petersson, , op. cit. (12), 151–2.Google Scholar See also Maria, Henrietta, A coppy of 1. The Letter sent by the Queenes majestie concerning the collection of the recusants many for the Scottish warre, Apr. 17 1639.2. The letter sent by Sir K. Digby and Mr. Montague concerning the contribution… etc., London 1641.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Petersson, , op. cit. ( 12), 215.Google Scholar See also Gabrieli, V., ‘La missione di Sir Kenelm Digby alla corte di Innocenzo X (1645–1648)’, in Praz, Mario (ed.) English Miscellany, vol. 5, Rome, 1954, 247–88.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Petersson, , op. cit. (12), 216.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid., 218–22. See also Digby's letter to Holden, Henry, 18 11 1647Google Scholar, reprinted in Pugh, R., Blacklo's cabal (see following note), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Pugh, R., Blacklo's cabal discovered in severall of their letters clearly expressing Designs inhumane against regulars, unjust against the laity, scismatical against the Pope, cruel against orthodox clergymen, and owning the nullity of the chapter, their opposition to the episcopal authority, Douay?, 1680.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid., 33–34 and 36–40. For an account of the Blackloist opposition to the Jesuits see Bradley, R. I., ‘Blacklo and the counter-Reformation: an inquiry into the strange death of Catholic England’, in Carter, C. H. (ed.), From the renaissance to the counter-reformation: essays in honour of Garret Mattingly, London, 1966, 348–70.Google Scholar It is evident from Panzani, Gregorio, op. cit. (28)Google Scholar, that the Jesuits were the major stumbling block to any ecumenical movements. For surprising indications as to just how far the Blackloists were willing to go in their opposition to the Jesuits see Hay, M. V., The Jesuits and the Popish plot, London, 1934.Google Scholar

⁹³ Petersson, , op. cit. (12), 55.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid., 251. See also the articles on Digby in Biographia britannica, and DNB. Digby's close association with Cromwell is perhaps not so surprising as it may seem at a superficial glance. Cromwell seems to have been more inclined to grant freedom of worship than most of his contemporaries. See Paul, R. S., The Lord Protector: religion and politics in the life of Oliver Cromwell, London, 1955, 327–8 and 331–3Google Scholar; and Dockery, , op. cit. (27), 124–6.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Webster, John, Academiarum examen, or the examination of academies, London, 1653, p. 53.Google Scholar This is now conveniently reprinted in Debus, A. G. (ed.) Science and education in the seventeenth century: the Webster-Ward debate, London, 1970.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Webster, Charles, op. cit. (3), p. 134.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ DeJordy, A. and Fletcher, H. F. (eds.) ‘A Library for younger schollers’, compiled by an English scholar-priest about 1655 (Illinois studies in language and literature, vol. 48), Urbana, 1961, p. 4Google Scholar; cited from Webster, , op cit. (3), p. 134.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ward, Seth and Wilkins, John, Vindiciae academiarum, Oxford, 1654.Google Scholar This included an Appendix concerning what M. Hobbes and M. Dell have published on this argument. See Debus, , op. cit. (95)Google Scholar. Hobbes was attacked because of what was thought to be his atheism. The mechanical philosophy of Digby and White escaped these charges.

⁹⁹ Ward, , Appendix, 53.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ward, Seth, In Thomae Hobbii philosophicam exercitatio epistolica, Oxford, 1656, 93.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Wallis, John (ed.), Commercium epistolicum de quaestionibus quibusdam mathematicis nuper habitum … Oxford, 1658Google Scholar, letter to Digby, , 3 09 1657, pp. 12–15.Google Scholar I owe this and the references to Ward, and Wilkins, to Lewis, , op. cit. (10), 217–20.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Warton, Thomas, The life and literary remains of Ralph Bathurst, M. D., London, 1761Google Scholar, letter to Sergeant, John, 4 11 1656, pp. 165–7.Google Scholar See Jones, , op. cit. (10), 386.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ White, Thomas, The grounds of obedience and government, London, 1655Google Scholar, reprinted Farnborough, Hants, 1968. Previously this work has been dated as 1649, see Jones, H. W., op. cit. (10), 381–8.Google Scholar However, I have accepted the later date of 1655 which is proposed by Anstruther, G., op. cit. (10), ii, 351Google Scholar; and clearly established in Southgate, B. C., ‘Thomas White's Grounds of obedience and government: a note on the dating of the first edition’, Notes and queries, 1981, 28, 208–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a discussion of this work and indications of its relationship to White's theology see Gunn, J. A. W., Politics and the public interest in the seventeenth century, London, 1969, 87–97.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ White, , Grounds, 9.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., 47.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., 147.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., 152.

¹⁰⁸ Petersson, , op. cit. (12), 288–92.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ White continued to write and publish after the Restoration but he did not play an active role in the Chapter after that date, possibly because of the increasing condemnation of his work by the Holy Office (his works were censured in 1655, 1657, 1661, and 1663), and no longer seems to have involved himself directly in any of the political endeavours of the Chapter. Lewis, , op. cit. (10), 230Google Scholar; Southgate, , op. cit. (10), 10Google Scholar; and Anstruther, , op. cit. (10), ii, 351.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ , S. W.A vindication of the doctrine contained in Pope Benedict XII, his bull and in the general councill of Florence under Eugenius IIII concerning the state of departed souls… Wherein the progress of Master White's lately minted purgatory is laid open and its grounds examined etc., Paris, 1659, 8.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Pugh, R., Blacklo's cabal, from ‘The epistle to the Catholic reader’, unpaginated [p. 6].Google Scholar

¹¹² Bradley, R. I., op. cit. (92), especially pp. 351–2Google Scholar; Petersson, , op. cit. (12), 223Google Scholar; Dockery, , op. cit. (27), 124.Google Scholar White's contempt for the Jesuits (see p. 229 above) can be partially explained by their opposite views as to the meaning of counter-reform.

¹¹³ Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, London, 1651, part IV, chapter 46, 370.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Glanvill, Joseph, The vanity of dogmatizing: or, confidence in opinions manifested in a discourse of the shortness and uncertainty of our knowledge, London, 1661.Google Scholar White replied to this in Scirri, sive sceptices et scepticorum a jure disputationis exclusio, London?, 1663. Glanvill defended his own position in Scepsis scientifica: or confest ignorance the way to science … with a reply to the exceptions of the learned Thomas Albius, London, 1665.

¹¹⁵ White, Thomas, An exclusion of scepticks from all title to dispute: being an answer to the vanity of dogmatizing, London, 1665, 1–2.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Ibid., 52.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., 30–3.

¹¹⁸ One of the most interesting manifestations of White's belief that his rationalist natural philosophy was fully in agreement with scripture is to be found in his Theological appendix, of the beginning of the world. This appendix to his Institutionum peripateticarum, London, 1646 (English translation: London, 1656), seeks to show that the Biblical account in Genesis is in accord with the principles of mechanical philosophy as expounded by White. Clearly White pre-empted Burnet, Thomas's Sacred theory of the Earth, London, 1681–1689Google Scholar (in which Burnet tried to explain the events of Genesis in Cartesian terms), by over thirty years. I hope to consider the significance of this work and its possible influence on Burnet in a forthcoming paper.

¹¹⁹ Webster, , op. cit. (3), 1–31, 505–9, 517, 520.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ibid., 507, 520.

¹²¹ The obvious examples of such thinkers are to be found among the ranks of the Fifth Monarchists. See Capp, B. S., op. cit. (43).Google Scholar

¹²² Toon, P. (ed.), op. cit. (43)Google Scholar, passim, especially 8–41 and 104–14. As a further example consider Hammond, Henry, A premonition concerning the interpretation of the ApocalypseGoogle Scholar, in which he declares that the incidents foretold by John all happened very quickly after Christ's resurrection, and even that some of them had already occurred by the time John wrote, The works, London, 1684, iii, 855–61, especially 857.Google Scholar For a brief survey of other orthodox views see Murray, I. H., The Puritan hope, London, 1971, xvi–xviii, and 39–51.Google Scholar

¹²³ Toon, P. (ed.), op. cit. (43), 17Google Scholar, distinguishes between premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism. Christianson, Paul, op. cit. (43), 7Google Scholar, however, warns that these and other distinguishing terms are in danger of causing even greater confusion. I can readily agree with this and I must express my gratitude to Dr. Colin Russell for helping me to make sense of these abstruse matters. Christianson recommends the use of the wider term ‘apocalyptic’ and reserves the term ‘millennial’ (or ‘millenarian’) to refer to the notion of ‘a future, collective, imminent transformation of life on Earth’. B. S. Capp is always careful to distinguish between apocalypticism and millenarianism and, essentially, I am in agreement with his position. See, Capp, B. S., ‘Godly rule and English millenarianism’ and ‘The millennium and eschatology in England’Google Scholar, in Webster, C. (ed.), op. cit. (1), 386–98, and 427–34.Google Scholar There is one small point of difference between us, however. His characterisation of apocalypticism as ‘pessimistic’ and millenarianism as ‘optimistic’ (ibid., 387) is completely subjective and seems to illustrate what could be called ‘unbeliever's chauvinism’. Dr Capp seems to be incapable of seeing that a godly man could look forward to the Last Day with great optimism.

¹²⁴ Hobbes, , op. cit. (113), part III, ch. 38, 238–46.Google Scholar See also Pocock, , op. cit. (44), 173–76Google Scholar (in either edition).

¹²⁵ On Browne, Hobbes, Overton and Milton see Burns, , op. cit. (57)Google Scholar; on mortalism in the thought of John Donne see his Divine poems, edited by Gardner, H., London, 1952, xliii–xlvi, and 114–7Google Scholar; and Carey, John, John Donne: life, mind and art, London, 1980, 219–30.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Webster, , op. cit. (3), 505.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ A number of other writers have allowed themselves to be confused by failing to make the necessary distinction between apocalypticism and millenarianism. For example, Jacob, J. R., Robert Boyle and the English revolution: a study in social and intellectual change, New York, 1977, 125Google Scholar, notices that Boyle is too orthodox a thinker to desire the political revolution implied in millenarianism and yet he continues to speak of Boyle's ‘millenarianism’ throughout the book. Similarly, Jacob, M. C., The Newtonians and the English revolution, 1689–1720, Hassocks, 1976, 104Google Scholar and elsewhere, seems surprised to find ‘millenarianism’ advocated by many orthodox thinkers. In fact there is no contradiction: the orthodox thinkers she mentions looked forward to the complete destruction of their world followed by the establishment by God of a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ in which they would be living eternally in heavenly bliss. This is not a political vision but a religious one and it is definitely not millenarianism. Burnet, therefore, was not millenarian (contrary to her statement at p. 116), nor was Hobbes (p. 104), and nor was Evelyn (p. 122). Hill, Christopher, most recently in Some intellectual consequences of the English revolution, London, 1980, 58–61Google Scholar, also sees all shades of apocalyptic thought merely in terms of the ‘practical politics’ of millenarianism (p. 58) or in terms of a Baconian ‘theory of progress’ (p. 59).

¹²⁸ Boyle, Robert, Some physico-theological considerations about the possibility of the Resurrection, Works, London, 1772, iv, 191–202Google Scholar; Burnet, Thomas, op. cit. (118)Google Scholar; John Evelyn left among his manuscript papers, now at Christ Church, Oxford, a tract ‘Concerning the millennium’ (Evelyn MS 35) in which he insisted that he spoke ‘Not as the Millenaries of old’ about a thousand year period on this earth, but about an eternal period in a ‘Renewed Heaven and Earth to come’ (f.2). The visions of Burnet and Evelyn are similar in important respects to that of Hobbes who might also have been included in this list (see note 124 above).

¹²⁹ Jacob, J. R. and Jacob, M. C., ‘The Anglican origins of modern science: the metaphysical foundations of the Whig constitution’, Isis, 1980, 71, 251–67; p. 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁰ Letter from Hartlib, to Boyle, , 05 8, 1654Google Scholar, in Boyle, , Works, vi, 87.Google Scholar On ecumenism in Hartlib's circle see, for example, Batten, J. M., John Drury: advocate of Christian reunion, Chicago, 1944.Google Scholar Drury was one of the leading members of the circle.

¹³¹ Hunter, M., Science and society in Restoriation England, Cambridge, 1981, 28, 154–5, and 162–87Google Scholar; van Leeuwen, H. G., op. cit. (40)Google Scholar; and Rattansi, P. M., ‘Paracelsus and the Puritan revolution’, Ambix, 1963, 11, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³² Boyle, , Works, iv, 12.Google Scholar

¹³³ Ibid., 12–13.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 13.

¹³⁵ Stubbe is a complex character and the motivation that lay behind his pronouncements is often obscure. For a brief account of his attacks on the Royal Society see Spiller, M. R. G., ‘Concerning natural experimental philosophie’: Meric Casaubon and the Royal Society, The Hague, 1980, 25–30Google Scholar; and Hunter, , op. cit. (131), chapter 6, especially 136–40 and 155.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Stubbe, Henry, A censure upon certain passages contained in the History of the Royal Society, London, 1670, 40.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Stubbe, Henry, Campanella reviv'd: or, an enquiry into the history of the Royal Society, London, 1670.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ See Spiller, , op. cit. (135), 29–30.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Stubbe, Henry, A censure, op. cit. (136), 13.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Stubbe, Henry, The Plus ultra reduced to a nan plus, London, 1670, 161.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Bradley, R. I., op. cit. (10) and (92).Google Scholar

¹⁴² White, Thomas, Tabula suffragiales determinandis fidei ab ecclesia catholica fixae…, London, 1655.Google Scholar White's denial of Papal infallibility was by no means as unprecedented as many of his other beliefs. In fact it was a much disputed opinion within the Roman Catholic Church at that time.

¹⁴³ Biographia britannica article, 194 (in the footnotes).

¹⁴⁴ Baxter, Richard, Reliquae Baxterianae: or, Mr. Richard Baxter's narrative of the most memorable passages of his life and times, London, 1696, 118.Google Scholar For an interesting account of another group of heterodox Catholics who shared some ot their theological doctrines with the Puritans but who were also dismissed as straightforward Catholics by English Protestants see: Briggs, Robin, ‘The Catholic Puritans: Jansenists and Rigorists in France’, in Pennington, D. and Thomas, K. (eds.), Puritans and revolutionaries: essays in seventeenth-century history presented to Christopher Hill, Oxford, 1978, 333–54.Google Scholar