OCC CIV NOTES 11/9

FINAL EXAM DECEMBER 15 FROM 2-5

Notes on board-
1688-91 Revolutions
1688/9 Declaration of rights (Feb 13 1689)

William III + Mary replace James II (1685-8)
-vs "illegal" powres claimed by monarchy
-vs suspening and dispensing powers especially re. catholicism
-vs standing army in time of peace/ taxation without free representation
-FOR free elections/trial by impartial jury + judge, rule f law
-FOR broad religious toleration for orthodox protestants in england

Restoration england- a persecuting society
the justifications alleged for intolerance in restoration england-
-political- dissenters are seditious and treasonous
-ecclesiological- 1) the church had a particular form wihch should be imitated from patristic times
2) the church had no one legitimate form, so the magistrate could determine it
3) theological- use of force prompts consideration and conversion and saves souls- it ISNT 'persecution'



LECTURE
why did the revolutions happen?
-monarchy was becoming very strong in the 1680s
-locke flees to the netherlands in exile
-has to hide in peoples houses, live under an assumed name, only go out at night, because people are sent to hunt him down and execute him
-monarchy has money, controls judges + juries, is basically absolutist
-there were still SOME weaknesses in the monarchy
-many nobles still wanted to have rule of law, rule by parliament
-people were still worried about the king's massive power over the judiciary
-support of tories (huge group) was given to the church AS WELL AS the monarchy
-if the king fought against the church, he loses the support of the tories
-the king also might die
-if he dies, his brother gets the throne, his brother's catholic
-1685- French King Louis XIV forced all of his subjects to convert or go into exile or prison
-this scares people in england, huge check on religious freedom is what they see
-there's another nation across the channel- HOLLAND
-FIERCELY protestant
-the ruler of the netherlands is a kind of limited elected monarchy kind of
-'monarch' of holland was MARRIED to the next in line after James II to the throne
-in 1685, the king dies, James II gets the throne
-if he had supported the church, kept limiting franchise but having a parliament, didn't have children, he would have been OK. he did none of these things
-supported religious toleration, but historians question his motives in doing so
-to support religious toleration, James II is required to suspend the laws that persecute catholics in england
-now catholics can hold office, be employed, INCLUDING the army
-does this not just in england, but also in IRELAND, where the majority of the population was catholic
-remodels the franchise to get rid of Protestant dissenters, basically switches the franchise exactly backwards from the previous king
-cuts out of the franchise the entire protestant anglican base, gives the power to about 6% of the population who are dissenters or catholic
-James has a child. bad plan
-people realize that his kid will be raised catholic, the army's catholic, now catholics are employed, this spells return of catholicism. bad for english people.
-William III looks at this and sees that his wife is next in line to the english throne
-sees that if protestant england falls, protestant Holland will soon fall after
-decides to INVADE ENGLAND
-idiot
-invades in 1688/9, on pretense that some nobles have invited him in and also that the child of James II was not actually his child, so there was a fraudulent heir
-said that he was invading to protect his wife's line to the throne
-james decides to flee.
-idiot
-james might have won, even though he's alienated the vast majority of the population
-english gather in parliament to figure out just what the fuck happened
-lots of works were written and sent in (like Locke's treatises)
-some argue that kings cannot be lawfully deposed, James II's grandchildren will come back to claim their right to the throne
-others argue that a republic is the way to go again
-these were the extreme arguments
-moderate arguments- william and mary now have the throne, we must now obey them, however they got the power
-William Sherlock writes 'Case of Allegiance'- huge huge HUGE circulation (>30,000 copies in an electorate of ~100,000)
-another argument- the king, by fleeing, has abdicated, rule passes to the next in law
-this would be his son, but his son's not legitimate, so mary gets it
-they write up the declaration of rights, present it to the new king, he 'accepts' it
-when he accepts it, he doesn't really agree to it persay, but whatever

Locke
-theorist for armed resistance (ends up being unnecessary)
-people have rights to establish any sort of government they wish (again unnecessary)
-pretty much completely ignored
-his works really come into play in teh american revolution
Religious Intolerance
-restoration england is a society of persecution
-last time in english history where everybody tried to secure religious uniformity by coercive means
-argued for 'holy violence'
-the magistrate needs to make 'pious use of the sword'
-thousands of dissenters imprisoned and killed
-to hold office or earn franchise, you had to take the sacrament
three arguments offered to justify this policy
-first (political)
-other religions were dissenters and seditious, caused bloodshed in the past, so kill them
-for a society to be secure, only one religion could exist
-stable society is necessary
-if people disagree with religion, they will fight, not stable!!
-second (ecclesiological)
-EITHER- the church has a particular form which should be imitated, primitive form of the church
-OR- the church has varied over time, so the MAGISTRATE determines what is best
-third (theological or philosophical)
-inherited essentially from Augustine
-'when the saving gifts of the church were in question, coercive force was a gift'
-coercive discipline was the name of the game
-you should compel people to come into the church, this doing a favor for them
-someone who used force against a religious deviant was to 'save souls'
-Augustine himself converted
-came to realize that he was much better off after conversion
-so the argument is that once people are converted, even by force, they will be glad that you converted them, so use force now
-Augustine's works are CEASELESSLY cited during this time in defense of intolerance
-it's often said that force can't convert people
-Augustine recognizes this, but has an answer
-maybe by using force, you'll read a book you wouldn't have before, or go to church where you wouldn't have before, so it's not the FORCE that converts you, it's the RESULTS
-for Augustine, the use of force was NOT persecution
-persecution was ONLY force against the truth, not against falsehood
-therefore all of the violence being used against people was 'a charitable use of force out of concern of the souls of others'