OATHS, CASUISTRY, AND EQUIVOCATION: ANGLICAN RESPONSES TO THE ENGAGEMENT CONTROVERSY
OATHS, CASUISTRY, AND EQUIVOCATION: ANGLICAN RESPONSES TO THE ENGAGEMENT CONTROVERSY
复制标题
誓言、诡辩和模棱两可：英国圣公会对订婚争议的回应
DOI：
10.1017/s0018246x01001662
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Edward Vallance
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Edward Vallance
这篇文章讲述了一场常见的政治辩论中被忽视的一个方面，即英国国教保皇派作家对订婚争议的贡献。通过关注圣公会的这些回应，对辩论中涉及的核心问题提供了一种新的解释。昆汀·斯金纳、玛格丽特·贾德森和约翰·华莱士的著作集中讨论了对事实上的权力服从的义务。然而，这篇文章认为，这是一场关于宣誓的性质和作出明显相互矛盾的宣誓承诺的合法性的辩论，这是争议的核心。作家们对誓言和圣约的结合提出了不同的解释，残馀部分的支持者声称他们是有条件的，并依赖于环境考虑的义务，订婚的反对者声称这些宣誓的结合是非互惠的和不可分解的。在这场辩论中，支持和反对接触的作者都使用了诡辩的论点，敦促他们的读者要么接受要么拒绝宣布效忠英联邦。然而，尽管英国国教在印刷品上曾建议不要订阅，但在两个出于良心的手稿案例中，他们允许记者接受订婚。
This article addresses a neglected facet of a familiar political debate, the contribution of Anglican royalist writers to the Engagement controversy. A new interpretation of the core issues at stake in the debate is offered by focusing on these Anglican responses. The work of Quentin Skinner, Margaret Judson, and John Wallace concentrated on the discussion of the duty of obedience to de facto powers. This article contends, however, that it was a debate over the nature of oaths and the lawfulness of taking apparently contradictory sworn promises which was at the heart of the controversy. Writers offered competing interpretations of the bond of oaths and covenants, the supporters of the Rump claiming that they were conditional and dependent for the obligation on circumstantial considerations, the Engagement's opponents claiming that these sworn bonds were non-reciprocal and indissoluble. In this debate both pro- and anti-Engagement authors used casuistic arguments to urge their readers either to take or to refuse the declaration of loyalty to the Commonwealth. Yet, whilst in print Anglicans had counselled against subscribing, in two manuscript cases of conscience they allowed correspondents to take the Engagement.