Explore the vast range of titles available.

Commentators raise fundamental questions about the notion of purity (sect. R1), the architecture of moral cognition (sect. R2), the functional relationship between morality and cooperation (sect. R3), the role of folk-theories of self-control in moral judgment (sect. R4), and the cultural variation of morality (sect. R5). In our response, we address all these issues by clarifying our theory of puritanism, responding to counter-arguments, and incorporating welcome corrections and extensions.

This article explores the various manifestations of religious hypocrisy to be found in new plays written in England between 1660 and 1720. It shows how the dramatists used hypocrisy both as a polemical weapon at times of religious conflict, and as an engaging form of theatricality. Exploring hypocrisy through drama is apposite as many of the key characteristics of hypocrisy – masks, role-playing, disguise and dissimulation – have been features of the theatre since ancient Greek times. The post-Restoration dramatists created worlds of masquerade for their hypocritical characters to inhabit, while the plays themselves offer examples of unselfconscious casuists, disreputable clerics, predatory monsters, and those who dissimulate religious beliefs, or have none at all.

Seventeenth-century British preachers persistently defined hypocrisy in contrast to its divine antidote: sincerity. This article looks at four such case studies from across the ‘puritan’-‘Anglican’ divide, analysing the sermons of the Independent Nicholas Lockyer, the Presbyterian Christopher Love, the Church of England clergyman James Oldfield, and the archbishop of Canterbury John Tillotson. It considers to what extent Protestant instruction on sincerity and hypocrisy shifted according to religious affiliation and socio-political context, arguing that although these sermons possessed considerable continuities in their theological underpinnings, they also exhibited divergences in focus and instruction that are sometimes, but not always, predictable along denominational lines. These differences held weighty implications for the individual receiving spiritual guidance on how to forswear hypocrisy and live a truly sincere life, particularly throughout the period of instability and contention that marked Britain from the Civil Wars to the Glorious Revolution.

Why do many societies moralize apparently harmless pleasures, such as lust, gluttony, alcohol, drugs, and even music and dance? Why do they erect temperance, asceticism, sobriety, modesty, and piety as cardinal moral virtues? According to existing theories, this puritanical morality cannot be reduced to concerns for harm and fairness: It must emerge from cognitive systems that did not evolve for cooperation (e.g., disgust-based “purity” concerns). Here, we argue that, despite appearances, puritanical morality is no exception to the cooperative function of moral cognition. It emerges in response to a key feature of cooperation, namely that cooperation is (ultimately) a long-term strategy, requiring (proximately) the self-control of appetites for immediate gratification. Puritanical moralizations condemn behaviors which, although inherently harmless, are perceived as indirectly facilitating uncooperative behaviors, by impairing the self-control required to refrain from cheating. Drinking, drugs, immodest clothing, and unruly music and dance are condemned as stimulating short-term impulses, thus facilitating uncooperative behaviors (e.g., violence, adultery, free-riding). Overindulgence in harmless bodily pleasures (e.g., masturbation, gluttony) is perceived as making people slave to their urges, thus altering abilities to resist future antisocial temptations. Daily self-discipline, ascetic temperance, and pious ritual observance are perceived as cultivating the self-control required to honor prosocial obligations. We review psychological, historical, and ethnographic evidence supporting this account. We use this theory to explain the fall of puritanism in western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies, and discuss the cultural evolution of puritanical norms. Explaining puritanical norms does not require adding mechanisms unrelated to cooperation in our models of the moral mind.

After their ejection from the Church of England, it is said that the English Presbyterians split into two factions. The ‘Dons’, led by Richard Baxter, pursued comprehension and reunion with the national Church, whilst the ‘Ducklings’ petitioned for an indulgence of their separation. In this article, it is argued that this twofold distinction is largely false. Rather, all English Presbyterians sought unity; their divergence in terms of practical policy stemmed from subtly different conceptions of catholicity. Thus, paradoxically, indulgence came to be seen as a pathway towards comprehension. Conventicle preaching, meanwhile, became a curious form of curacy, operating in tandem with the parish ministry.