Report Template - Jubilee Centre

ROYALISTS, REPUBLICANS, FIFTH MONARCHISTS AND LEVELLERS
David Wooton asserts that “the Levellers never claimed
that their political philosophy derived from separatist
religious principles,” and if it did, the movement’s
“support” may have been isolated “to those who were
separatist in religion.” 334 Separatist assumptions about
the origin and organisation of church government as
understood from the New Testament did impact their
constitutional theory; consent in the church led to
consent in the civil polity. If consent was required for
the church covenant─if this was the pattern left by
Christ and His disciples─then consent should be
applied to the creation of a civil polity, or, a civil
covenant. Levellers never drew a fine and tight
distinction between the godly and the ungodly in
regards to civil leadership and incorporation, and the
franchise, and possibly because all men have been made
in God’s image, and thus should reap the benefits of
natural rights. One could not be ‘put out’ of a political
community for being a sinner, as they would be from a
church.
Political Supremacy of the People:
Consent and Delegation
One of the first significant Leveller manifestos which
contained the heart of their political agenda was A
remonstrance of many thousand citizens . . . to their owne
House of Commons (1646), crafted by Overton and
Walwyn while Lilburne languished in prison for
slandering the Earl of Manchester. A remonstrance
highlighted the leading Leveller principles of the
sovereignty of the people, consent, annual parliaments,
and liberty of conscience.
The authors vent their accusatory assault against the
House of Commons, now dominated by Presbyterians,
for failing to “preserve the Common-wealth in Peace
and Happiness,” the grand objective with which they
were entrusted by way of delegation via the people’s
consent. Instead, their actions and policies were
reminiscent of an unelected King and House of Lords
bent on preserving their own interests at the expense of
the peoples’. They claimed the Commons had been
governing outside its legitimate authority since it over
extended its sitting beyond the lawfully established
annum to five years. Their argument rested in a
doctrine of the supremacy of the consent of the people
by way of lawful delegation. Since the original authority
to govern is inherent within each individual, and
entrusted to magistrates by way of delegation and
voluntary consent, that original grant of authority
cannot lawfully continue beyond its established sitting,
and thus revokable. “We possessed you with the same
334
David Wooton, “Leveller Democracy and the Puritan
Revolution,” in The Cambridge History of Political Thought (1450-
1700), eds. J.H. Burns and Mark Goldie (Cambridge University
Press, 1994), 436.
Power that was in our selves, to have done the same; For
wee might justly have done it our selves without you, if
we had thought it convenient.” 335
They also accused the Commons of exercising authority
over matters of religious worship and conscience,
though “neither you nor none else can have any into
power at all to conclude the People in matters that
concerne the Worship of God, for therein every one of
us ought to be fully assured in our owne mindes, and to
be sure to Worship him according to our Consciences.”
Such a power could never have been lawfully delegated;
“for wee could not conferre a Power that was not in our
selves, there being none of us, that can without wilfull
sinne, binde our selves to worship God after any other
way, then what (to a tittle,) in our owne particular
understandings, wee approve to be just.” 336 Three times
the authors exclaim that the workings of the Commons
are tantamount to the work of evil, and part of the
“mystery of iniquity” which Paul warns of in
2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. 337
Liberty of Conscience: Separation of
Church and State
All three Leveller theorists stressed the illegitimate role
of magistrates in matters of conscience and religious
worship, and warned of the inevitable persecution
which accompanies such intrusive civil authority.
Lilburne stressed the priority of the Gospel over the Old
Testament law in this regard; that “the Law and the
Testimony of Christ” was the “straight Rule,” which
guided men in matters of worship, not “the Ordinance,
Lawes, Rights and Ceremonies of the Church of the Jewes,”
which “were types, and figures,” now irrelevant since
Christ’s “death did abolish,” them. To “persecute for
conscience is not of nor from God, but of and from the Divell,
and Antichrist.” 338
William Walwyn was especially outspoken in regards to
liberty of conscience. In Tolleration justified, and
persecution condemn’d (1646), he claimed that the very
“ground of Freedome consists” in men’s “practice and
exercise of their Religion.” Parliament is to provide for
the “safety and Freedome” of the people, “whereof
Liberty of conscience is the principall branch.” 339 In A
335
Richard Overton and William Walwyn, A remonstrance of many
thousand citizens, and other free-born people of England to their owne
House of Commons (London, July 7, 1646), 3.
336
Ibid., 12.
337
Ibid., 10, 14, 17.
338 John Lilburne, A copie of a letter, written by John Lilburne Leut.
Collonell. To Mr. William Prinne Esq (London, January, 7, 1645), 1,
3.
339
William Walwyn, Tolleration justified, and persecution condemn’d
(London, 1646), 7, 15.
65