The argumentation of relious policy change in restoration England

During the 15th and 16th centuries in England, there was significant political and religious turmoil. Following the English Civil Wars and a secular tyrant, the English people exuberantly welcomed King Charles II. Charles began his reign with enthusiasm for political reform and religious freedom. Despite his promise to work with Parliament to create peace, his reign can be characterized by continual dissent. Upon his death, Parliament immediately stripped many powers from the monarchy. Utilizing a narrative rhetorical approach, I will analyze the argumentation of specific Parliamentary policies and Monarchical declarations in conjunction with minister sermons and journals. With the combination of these analyses, I will establish the two distinct intentions of Charles and Parliament, as well as the true impacts of the policies. I will then examine the lasting effects of these changes on English society. I will conclude with the limitations of this research and some suggestions for future research on this topic.

THE ARGUMENTATION OF RELIOUS POLICY CHANGE IN RESTORATION ENGLAND by Caroline Felton A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts In The Department of Communication Approved: ______________________________ Professor Kevin Coe Thesis Faculty Supervisor _____________________________ Professor Danielle Endres Chair, Department of Communication _______________________________ Professor Natasha Seegert Honors Faculty Advisor _____________________________ Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Dean, Honors College May 2019 Copyright © 2019 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT During the 15th and 16th centuries in England, there was significant political and religious turmoil. Following the English Civil Wars and a secular tyrant, the English people exuberantly welcomed King Charles II. Charles began his reign with enthusiasm for political reform and religious freedom. Despite his promise to work with Parliament to create peace, his reign can be characterized by continual dissent. Upon his death, Parliament immediately stripped many powers from the monarchy. Utilizing a narrative rhetorical approach, I will analyze the argumentation of specific Parliamentary policies and Monarchical declarations in conjunction with minister sermons and journals. With the combination of these analyses, I will establish the two distinct intentions of Charles and Parliament, as well as the true impacts of the policies. I will then examine the lasting effects of these changes on English society. I will conclude with the limitations of this research and some suggestions for future research on this topic. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5 Restoration Timeline 13 NARRATIVE RHETORICAL CRITICAL ANALYSIS 24 Declaration at Breda, April 4, 1660 24 Act of Uniformity, 1662 28 Declaration of Toleration, 1662 34 Black Bartholomew’s Day, 1662 36 CONCLUSION 42 Limits of Narrative Analysis 43 Future 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY 46 iii 1 INTRODUCTION In the 17th century, England was in political and religious turmoil. Having executed their divine-right monarch in favor of a nominally secular dictator, the people of England were ready to have a monarch again. A secular state did not solve the problems that the monarchs of the last hundred years had left, and their new leader died without a strong heir. As such, it only made sense to turn to the familiar for comfort and stability. However, those members of parliament who remained remembered why they had deemed it necessary to execute their last monarch and wanted to keep tight control over this new monarch. That is the powder keg that His Majesty King Charles II of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith walked into upon his return from exile after his father’s death over a decade before. Having explored his own faith and seen a different perspective on almost everything than those politicians who grew up in England, his return was met with some friction. In the end, neither side achieved what they wanted. Ultimately, the English monarchy was changed forever. Tradition shifted, and the balance of power has been forever altered. Because his friction with Parliament bled over onto the people, many lives were impacted before it was over. Ministers from all across the nation were unemployed, and subjects across faith and class spectrums were subjected to punitive measures by Parliament and local law enforcement. When the conflict between the two national political powers overshadowed the good of the country itself, local religious leaders stepped up to participate and assist where they could. Since such actions blatantly flouted the law, these religious leaders also had a profound impact on the shape of the political landscape by the time the conflict was resolved. 2 In this paper, I will look at one to two texts from each of these groups and analyze their arguments and the way that they interacted with each other. For Charles II, I will briefly look at his Declaration at Breda, 1660, before more thoroughly examining his Declaration in Favour of Toleration, 1662. The Declaration at Breda serves as an important precursor that had an impact on the passage of Declaration of Indulgence which serve as bookends for his primary struggle with Parliament for control of England and the Uniformity Act. The Declaration of Toleration is also significant due to the specific language that Charles uses when he refers to Parliament and their actions. It serves to demonstrate his reaction to the Uniformity Act. Through the examination of these two documents, I will show the shift in Charles’ attitude in relation to tolerance and progress. We will see an increase in determination and a decrease in confidence in his abilities to accomplish this tolerance. For Parliament, I will examine the Uniformity Act of 1662. The Uniformity Act of 1662 is the starting point of the entire conflict. Prior to this act, England was in a tense but peaceful truce. After this act, the conflict between Charles and Parliament increased every time either side acted. Additionally, this act is the first one that greatly impacted anyone beyond Charles and the Lords and Commons, particularly in a bad way. In the wake of the change in Monarch that occurred in what we call the Glorious Revolution, Parliament finally relented. The Toleration Act of 1689 was the act that balanced the Protestant interests and removed many of the punitive measures that had been enacted to that point. It defined the reign of William and Mary and shaped the religious and political future of England. 3 For the religious leaders, I will look at the body of sermons given during the Great Ejection, Black Bartholomew’s Day of 1662. This last text consists of several hundred sermons given by ministers all across the country. These ministers are all considered nonconformists and were primarily Protestants or Protestant leaning Anglicans. This date was the deadline beyond which hundreds of ministers were ejected from their positions, and many communities were significantly impacted. This body of text will provide a variety of perspectives amongst the ministers who were active in the religious turmoil of the time. I will use a narrative approach to my rhetorical criticism due to the way these documents interact with and rely upon each other. Without the other texts, each one has much less of an impact. It is only in the reactionary causation that the true extent of the significance of each of these texts can be seen. The “narrative paradigm” as Walter R. Fisher calls it, is a combination of persuasive argumentation and literary aesthetic (Fisher, 2017). This dialectic is relevant to my paper because I argue the specific intents of various documents while also telling the combined story of the time. In my efforts, the narrative approach is helpful because stories are meaningful across culture, time, and place (Burgchardt & Jones, 2017). Further, a narrative, rhetorical analysis is often used in historical examinations, due to the contextual understanding necessary for the analysis. 1 Narrative analysis is also common in religious discussions, particularly when there are multiple texts to examine in relation with each other. 2 A narrative is a “living and This can be seen in regards to Plato and his rhetoric (Wachs, 2018), as well as for the Apostle Paul (Medel & Ferguson, 2018). Both of these articles consist of historical discussion and context, as well as textual analyses in order to construct and examine the narrative of these two historical figures. 2 See the discussion of Poor Sarah (Clair et al., 2015), the analysis of Benjamin Colman’s sermons (Evans, 1987), and the structure of the publicity of the Apostle Paul (Medel & Ferguson, 2018), among others. These particular examples discuss the varieties of a particular story and the writings of a specific person, or about a specific person, respectively. 1 4 constitutive part of a larger network of enacted understanding” which bridges different cultural levels as well as different times (Hinderaker, 2018). Despite occurring more than 300 years ago, the story that I tell is still relevant and impactful in the modern world because the story is relatable and recognizable to a modern reader. In my analysis of the relevant documents, I will analyze the interactions between the different groups and interpret the changing attitudes throughout this conflict. I argue that Charles started out fighting for the people before losing his nerve in the face of Parliament’s refusal to work with him. By the end of the conflict, Charles was beaten and no longer confident in his position nor in his power to accomplish his stated goals. I will argue that Parliament was both working to solidify their own power and doing what they thought best for the stability and prosperity for England as a whole. With the transition of the Glorious Revolution, they certainly accomplished the first of their goals but failed to accomplish the second. Based on the historical influences and events leading up to this time period, they protected England from what they saw as the greatest threat, that being Catholicism. The ministers were primarily focused on toleration, less as a political maneuver and more because they were faithful to their specific religious sects. Furthermore, based on the context, many of the ministers were more focused on the wellbeing of their followers, both physically and spiritually, than the political advantage of any position. Ultimately, I argue that Parliament was the party that came out of the conflict with the greatest advantage, given each group’s goals and intentions going in. 3 This paper serves as one part of a two-part analysis of policy change in England. This is a communication analysis of argumentation, while the other part is a historical examination the conflict and its significance. As such, there are similarities between the two parts, particularly in regards to historical context and documentation. 3 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT Since before the establishment of England as a country by William the Conqueror, the peoples of the British Isles were primarily Roman Catholics with strong ties to the Holy Roman Empire and Rome through alliances and the marriages of their nobility. When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517 (Luther, 2009), the Pope named King Henry VIII “Defender of the Faith” (Newcombe, 1995). However, soon after Henry altered the course of English history and Anglican religious practices. By 1533, Henry had severed all official ties with Rome, setting off a new tide of religious unrest that lasted over a century in England. Unconcerned about the lasting impact of his choices, the King unilaterally took charge of the church in England. Removing all of England from Rome’s control, Henry enacted his own interpretation of Christianity by becoming the “Supreme Head” of his church. This interpretation was neither strictly Catholic nor Protestant in nature but brought in Humanistic elements, such as holding services in English and using English Bibles instead of Latin (Bucholz & Key, 2013; Newcombe, 1995). Throughout the rest of his life, Henry further refined the powers the English monarch held over the Anglican Church, and precisely what it meant to be Anglican (Ryrie, 2003). Despite the extreme changes that Henry ultimately wrought on religion in England, he did not truly alter the everyday practices of his subjects. Other than taking control of the Church and making it more English, he used a very similar prayer book and retained many of the same traditions as existed under Catholicism (Newcombe, 1995). Upon his death, Edward VI, Henry’s nine-year-old son, assumed the throne in 1547 while maintaining his father’s title as Supreme Head. Edward was born after the break from Rome and was 6 considered a fierce Protestant, despite his youth. Under Edward, his regents worked to make the Church of England experience a true Protestant reformation, moving further away from Catholic tradition (Middleton, 2004b). However, just as the Reformation was in full swing, Edward died in 1553 and his elder sister Mary I took over the throne. Being devoutly Catholic, she reinstituted Catholicism and restored Papal influence in England (Bucholz & Key, 2013). She also married Philip of Spain in an effort to instill new Catholic loyalty and support abroad (Middleton, 2004d). Despite some support for Catholicism in England, through her actions, she ejected thousands of priests and executed hundreds more men and women as so-called ‘heretics’ when her subjects wished to retain their protestant ties (Bucholz & Key, 2013). Mary died not having solved any of the problems that she inherited or created and with no children of her own (Middleton, 2004d). In 1558, Elizabeth I, Henry’s remaining living child, ascended to the throne. She wanted to “heal the religious divisions and provide some religious stability” when she took over (Bucholz & Key, 2013). In an effort to do this, she worked with a small group of Protestant advisors to create a Church that was essentially a midpoint between the Puritans, or the extreme Protestants, and the Catholics. The only religious constant through this period, from 1533 to about 1570, was the constant state of religious turmoil. Elizabeth I ruled for 45 years, maintaining one constant religion for her entire reign, allowed Protestantism to spread and become the new normal in England. Despite Elizabeth’s protestant leanings, Catholics were still allowed to practice their religion openly with minimal restrictions as a result of being outside of the Church of England. After the reign of Mary, many of the people who had remained in England were 7 afraid of having another Catholic monarch on the throne. Given the youth and inexperienced of the previous three monarchs being a child and two women, there was the expectation within the houses of Parliament and the Privy Council of maintaining this increased authority at the political table. Following her death in 1603, James I, Elizabeth’s Scottish cousin ascended to the throne. Through tolerant and moderate policies, in much the same way as Elizabeth, James did not push either religious extreme but allowed them to all coexist together. With this method, England survived in relative religious consistency for most of a century (Bucholz & Key, 2013). During this time, there were constant rumors that James was a closet Catholic or Romanist. Some of these rumors were simply borne from the fact that many Scots, including his mother, were fierce Roman Catholics at this time (Middleton, 2004c). These rumors, along with his disinterest in ruling or politics near the end of his reign, led to rising tensions, particularly near the end of his life. This combination also led to further involvement from Parliament in an effort to protect the country. When his son, Charles I, became king in 1625, the religious ceasefire came to an end. He instituted new liturgy and theology that, while officially Protestant, had much more overlap with Catholic practice and belief (Bucholz & Key, 2013). With these changes, he caused so much strife and disagreement and sparked resistance from Englishmen and women, which contributed to England falling into Civil Wars between 1642 and 1649. In addition to being at war with many of the people of England, Charles I was at war with much of Parliament throughout these Civil Wars (Middleton, 2004a). The wars resulted in his execution and the establishment of the Commonwealth, which was completely secular and had no official established church (Bucholz & Key, 8 2013). In truth, Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, was extremely Puritanical in his approach to anything remotely religious. His approach and the lack of any official national religion allowed for a huge expansion of Protestant religious diversity through the establishment of many different sects. While there was some growth in Catholic communities at this time, there was not substantial allowance for such growth due to historical, tensions throughout England dating back to Mary. Many of these sects clashed with the Commonwealth, and the Interregnum ended in 1660 with the return of the monarchy. Now termed the Restoration, this transition saw the restoration of the monarchy as well as Parliament and the Privy Council. With the restoration of divine authority came the reestablishment of the Church of England. While the existing church was moderately protestant and some people welcomed the return of its authority, some of the new sects could not live with the dictations of the government regarding religious practice. In an effort to prevent additional religious turmoil, Parliament passed several acts to unify religion throughout the country. However, much of this had a negative effect on religion, insulting many of the ministers and priests or simply ejecting them (Bucholz & Key, 2013). While much of this information is relatively well known and understood within historical studies, all of these religious changes went through Parliament. The ones that did not go through Parliament ultimately failed and resulted in the English Civil Wars. While there is now an established goal of separating church and state, that was not even an idea in the minds of English subjects in the 17th century. The idea of the divine right of the monarch or another political figure to rule over religion was one that was well established by this point. When a monarch wants to change something about the Church of England, 9 they go through Parliament. Prior to the split from Rome, religious changes came from Rome but afterwards, religion became another national concern and was treated as such, with a balance between the people and the Crown. Due to the makeup of Parliament, with both houses of Lords and of Commons, even when the changes are controversial or not widely supported, most of the subjects will follow them and continue to support the monarch for doing things the right way. Through each of these changes spanning nearly 150 years, new religious groups formed and gained followers. At the same time, Protestantism and Catholic Reform were undergoing their own changes on the continent and in the American Colonies, all of which contributed new ideas and practices to the changes happening in England. Some things remained constant, such as the belief in Christ and salvation through him. Nearly all of the religious sects in England maintained the English books and services, the practices, beliefs, and cultures of each of these groups was unique in their journey to salvation through Christ. Some of these groups have since become the Puritans, the Presbyterians, the Calvinists, the Lutherans, and the Jesuits, among others. Each group had its own level of ceremony, its own method of mass and a unique prayer book, as well as baptism and other sacrament processes. In short, none of these new religious sects fit under the Church of England or Catholicism and have been persecuted by both groups, as well as other minor sects, throughout English history. It is important to note that the official state religion was Anglicanism. However, as with any social practice, tradition is important and hundreds of years of Catholicism did not just disappear with even a century of protestant laws. There were some traditions that remained important in Anglican practices, despite being considered Catholic to the more 10 liberal Protestants. Similarly, there was far too much Protestant humanism and reform for those who were more Catholic. We have since clearly divided this spectrum up with the names above and many more, but at the time, each of these sects were similar interpretations of Christian faith and reform, with many fewer labels than we have now. As such, even those who believed themselves faithful to the state religion were not always compliant. There were also those who may not have identified as Anglican but still met many of the requirements of compliance. People who had always followed the laws were now dissenting because they did not agree with the execution of their faith. All of these aspects of religion were constantly changing and really came to a head with the Restoration. With each subsequent ruler or law being passed dating back to Henry, the definition of being a ‘good English Christian’ changed, fluctuating and altering. Sometimes it was more inclusive, allowing for a more diverse population and sometimes it became stricter, alienating different groups who had previously been accepted. In this Restoration period, for each law that was passed controlling religion, fewer people were considered the right kind of Christian so more became dissenters and not law abiding. As tensions continued to rise and escalate, the government worked to maintain control and unify the subjects as efficiently as possible. Additionally, each time a new law was passed, there was often a punishment associated with disobeying the law. The enforcement of such laws also fluctuated with the ruler, region, and enforcement body, but many remained enforceable even if they fell out of favor at a particular time. Similar to increasing fines and punishments today, when people disobeyed religious policies at this point in time, the governmental response was to increase the punishments until people were no longer willing to take the risk of being 11 caught. As such, it became more difficult to enforce the increasing laws as fewer people were considered law-abiding. Parliament decided that increasing the punishments would reduce the number of people willing to break the new laws and make them more reasonable to enforce. The same decision was made over several decades, and there were entire groups of people who were paying fines regularly. They started as fines and increased to imprisonment. If you received too many fines for that or anything else or couldn't pay them, you could be imprisoned or start losing "privileges" such as serving in public office. Also, publishing certain things arguing against anything related to religion was considered sedition and thereby treason, which could have punishments up to execution, including drawing and quartering. Furthermore, under previous reigns, there were different courts which attached physical punishments in addition to fines such as losing fingers, limbs, and ears, all the way up to execution and many of those laws were still on the books. As with the various fines, depending on the specific conflict, Parliament or local officials chose to employ those punishments as they saw fit. By the time the Civil Wars occurred, dissenters were being disfigured, hung, burned alive, and drawn and quartered, depending on the region and the level of dissent. In Restoration England, there had been such a high level of turmoil related to religion that many in the government wanted to clarify what it meant to be Anglican. After having Cromwell, who was so against religion in the state that he cancelled Christmas, and the return of a Monarch who was raised by an open Catholic, Parliament especially wanted there to be clear lines of demarcation regarding what was considered acceptable religious practice. As such, the Church of England, through acts of Parliament, imposed dramatic 12 changes in church doctrine and practice in an effort to unify the many religious traditions that had been able to flourish in the Interregnum. These changes mandated extreme actions from dissenting ministers, particularly in the Presbyterian and Independent sects. These alterations included updated rote prayers as well as a heavy and exacting sacramental liturgy which had to be followed. Some ministers were even required to be reordained by a high-ranking bishop in the Church of England. Failure to comply within a timely manner resulted in expulsion from their jobs. Throughout these changes, the wives and families of the ministers were forced to watch their husbands and fathers be dragged off to prison, despite the pleadings of their congregations. They lost their allowances, sometimes not regaining it for years, if ever. Some ministers and their families often lost the estates and properties on which they had lived and were forced to move arbitrary distances away from their homes without notice. These unexpected hardships often did nothing to harm the faith of the ministers and their families but devastated many people across England. Overall, the communities which had been close-knit were lost. Huge numbers of people were unemployed, in prison, or homeless, along with their families. The tentative potential for peace which had existed in the Interregnum was destroyed in the early years of the Restoration, and the results of those acts which caused the changes were far from what had been intended. Instead of peaceably unifying and clarifying what it meant to be English and returning to the traditional monarchy, the monarch was once again exiled in favor of another and religion was just as complex as before. With all of this in mind, this project is focused on discovering the impact of the national policy changes to the Church 13 of England through Parliament during the Restoration period on religious practice and monarchical power in England by the end of the conflict. Restoration Policies and Timeline Upon Restoration to the Monarchy, King Charles II immediately ran into trouble and conflict with Parliament over money, and power, but, primarily, religion. Before he was officially restored, Charles II made a declaration at Breda, France (Browning, 1966j; Kenyon, 1986l) in 1660, while he was still in exile. This declaration was initially a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons and later published so that all of his subjects could know what he had promised (Browning, 1966n; Kenyon, 1986p). These promises included peace, toleration, and prosperity for England under his rule. Unfortunately for all involved, he was unable to follow through on this promise due to repeated mistrust and religious conflict between himself and the two Houses of Parliament. Initially, Parliament appeared eager to welcome Charles back to England as their new ruler and protector. There were many acts passed by one or both Houses of Parliament which were meant to make this welcome known. Such acts included the official Proclamation of Charles II, proclaiming to all of the country and the world that he would be the next King of England (Browning, 1966h). This act was the first step in welcoming Charles back to England as such a Proclamation is normally passed immediately upon the death of the former monarch as a way to inform the people who was chosen to inherit. While such a process was sometimes redundant, it remains a tradition in order to stave off any other potential claimants to the throne creating confusion (Flantzer, 2017). It also reinforced that both the House of Lords and the House of Commons support the inheritor of the throne and will stand against any opposing claimants. Parliament followed this show 14 of support with the passage of the Act for Perpetual Thanksgiving, which celebrated the date on which Charles returned to England from Exile (Browning, 1966b). These two acts seemed to be the welcoming side of the acts done at this time. In 1661, Parliament also assigned the sole right of the militia to the King in an effort to further welcome Charles back into a position of power (Kenyon, 1986c). Parliament enacted several other statutes which were more focused on renouncing the Interregnum. One such act ordered the exhumation of Oliver Cromwell and several other figures who were prominent during the Interregnum from Westminster Abbey. The act further ordered a desecration of the bodies with a subsequent “execution” (Browning, 1966o). Two other acts essentially attempted to reverse the previous 20 years. The Act for Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings invalidated the court rulings, fines, and imprisonments enforced since 1641 and reversed any which had not yet been enforced (Kenyon, 1986a). Similarly, An Act of free and general Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion further reestablished Charles as a legal authority but also pardoned almost everyone involved in any religious, governmental, or foreign crimes since before the last civil war, especially focusing on those who had been fined or those related to the Irish rebellions (Kenyon, 1986b). With such a welcome in the first year of the Restoration, it appeared that Charles had been accepted back to England with open arms. However, the subsequent decades were tumultuous for the entirety of England and many of their neighbors as well. Charles ran into conflict with Parliament over anything and everything from the beginning. In regards to foreign relations, Charles and Parliament had different opinions on English participation in the Dutch Wars, which ran from 1662 until well into the 1670s. During the same period, 15 Charles also disagreed with Parliament’s demands regarding trading concerns with France. Having come from nearly two decades of exile in France, Charles expressed a desire to ally with the French in the First Dutch War which was denied by Parliament, resulting in England having no allies. Therefore, in the Second Dutch War, England would have been more agreeable to successfully form an alliance with France. However, as Spain lost dominion over the content, France moved in to take over as the major Catholic power in Europe (Browning, 1966k; Kenyon, 1986p). As such, Charles’ desire to ally with them at all, regardless of the reasoning, concerned Parliament about his faith and his loyalty. In addition to such foreign concerns, there was similarly major conflict between Charles and both Houses of Parliament, but particularly the Commons regarding finances, taxes, and accountability, as well as monarchical control and sovereignty. The final subject for conflict over this time period was religion and religious policy. While it was its own point of contention, religious concerns were threaded through all of the other areas of debate as well, to the extent that it appeared the main conflict was religion. For every action taken by Charles, whether in foreign relations, domestic relations, or his own private affairs, Parliament assigned a religious association and took a counter-step. In the midst of all of these political conflicts, of specific concern to Charles were the many promises that he made to his people with the Declaration of Breda. His first promise was that his priority would be putting England “into a quiet and peaceable possession…with as little blood and damage to our people as is possible” (Browning, 1966j; Kenyon, 1986l). He then pardoned all subjects who expressed their loyalty to him, particularly those who may have opposed the monarchy when his father had been King. This action went a long way to demonstrate his sincerity to his subjects since there were 16 plenty of crimes which he had the right to punish many of those who had opposed his father. The most significant promise that he made was the promise of what we now call religious freedom (Browning, 1966j; Kenyon, 1986l). Such a statement was groundbreaking in its originality and uniqueness at this time. Since Henry split from Rome, each ruler of England, including Cromwell made it the business of the state to know where each person stood in terms of his or her beliefs, both politically and religiously. For a king, who in all reason, had the right to decimate those who had executed his father and stolen his crown, to return home and promise religious privacy and true variety was likely stunning to many who heard of his declaration. In October 1660, Charles followed this declaration with a more in-depth statement regarding the religious tolerance that he had promised. Parliament responded to this declaration harshly. In 1662, the Uniformity Act was put forth, completely restructuring the Church of England and redefining what it meant to both practice and to preach in that church. The full title of the statute is An Act for the Uniformity of Public Prayers, and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies, and for Establishing the Form of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons in the Church of England, which inarguably summarizes the changes made (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). However, what the title does not explain is that this act required the reordination of practically every bishop, priest, and deacon in England at the time. Additionally, anyone who wanted to remain in service to the Church was also required to disavow any other religion or religious fealty, completely rededicating themselves to this new Church of England and to Parliament. Finally, those 17 who would be impacted by this statute had only a few months to shift their religious practice completely, or they would begin to be fined and even imprisoned in some cases. Such changes included the implementation of new prayer books, new declarations of allegiance, and a notably different liturgy. In some cases, depending on the sect, this also meant new church decorations, new religious garments, and different meeting structures. In the most extreme cases, when Parliament was concerned about the beliefs and loyalties of a particular minister or region, they would be required to disavow any other religious authority and swear that they believed solely and faithfully in the Church of England, to the exclusion of all else. Furthermore, this final oath required a reordination by a high-ranking Bishop in the Church, which would essentially invalidate any work that the minister had performed to date. These demands served as a harsh counterpoint to the promise of religious privacy and diversity made by Charles when he offered toleration. To some extent, such a contrast was likely a deliberate choice by Parliament. Such a choice would undermine Charles’ authority, thereby both returning any loyalty that he had gained back to Parliament and specify that he did not have the authority to promise any kind of toleration on their behalf. As such, in combination with the political maneuvering that had been ongoing for several generations at this point, Parliament’s actions would serve as a clear objection to Charles’ promises. Charles ended 1662 with another declaration in which he argued in favor of toleration. In this new declaration, Charles summarily recapped many of his points in the previous declaration, along with some pointed attacks at Parliament for forcing such a difficult choice upon his subjects. He even says “We find it artificially as maliciously 18 divulged throughout the whole kingdom that…we deny a fitting liberty to those other sects of our subjects whose consciences will not allow them to conform to the religion established by law” (Browning, 1966l; Kenyon, 1986k). In this quote, Charles is using the Royal We, which lends him a greater level of authority than anything else that he could have said in reference to himself. In fact, if he had used anything else, he would have been admitting that he had not the power of the monarch. With that in mind, his statement of malice is a specific jab at Parliament, in light of both their oath of loyalty to the people, the King, and the Church, as well as their stated desire to better the country through their acts (Kenyon, 1986o). He follows his pointed comment with a call to his subjects to recognize that Parliament is restricting the liberties of His subjects. At this time, conversations about what liberty meant were not uncommon, and one of the understood definitions was “Freedom from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic control; independence, esp. from a foreign power, monarchy, or dictatorship” (“liberty, n.1,” n.d.). Having come from France and the continent where similar discussions were not uncommon, Charles was certainly familiar with the implications of such a statement. By bringing such associations to Parliament, he is trying to get his subjects attention. At the same time, he is pointing out the Parliament that they may have some power but he is certainly not powerless, and they should be careful of what they push onto the people of England. In the same year the Uniformity act was passed, Parliament also found it important to limit the printing which occurred in England, specifically “any heretical, seditious, schismatical or offensive books or pamphlets, wherein any doctrine or opinion shall be asserted or maintained which is contrary to the Christian faith or the doctrine or discipline 19 of the Church of England, or which shall or may tend or be to the scandal of religion, or the Church, or the government” (Browning, 1966d). It is worth noting here that the two main issues that Parliament found important to limit were those pertaining to the debates of their own decisions and those relating to religious discussion. The treatment of these two issues as equal, or at least related, indicates the control which Parliament demanded over the Church of England. This issue was so important that papers needed to have the publisher printed so that it was known whom to punish. And there were punishments for any disobedience, including fines, dismissals, and imprisonment. The Uniformity and Licensing Acts were followed by the Five Mile Act in 1665. Due to the massive amount of change required by the Uniformity Act in order to remain in active service within the Church, hundreds of ministers were ejected from their positions at the end of 1662. Since most ministers lived where they worked, they continued to hold their own services outside of the state-sanctioned church services. Many maintained solid followings with the followers that they had known for years (Spufford, 1995; Watts, 1978). As a result, the Five Mile Act required any ejected ministers to move at least five miles outside of any area where they had preached at any time in the past (Browning, 1966a). As with the Uniformity and Licensing Acts, the Five Mile Act came with substantial punishments ranging from serious fines to imprisonment. These acts, among others, made up the Clarendon Code, named for the Lord who pushed for their passage (Harris, 2005). At this point, the conflict between Charles and Parliament seemed to be put on hold while they participated in the Second Dutch War. However, in association with this foreign conflict were domestic confrontations regarding finances and monarchical prerogative. This resulted in the levying of more than one million pounds in taxes in 1665 (Kenyon, 20 1986e, 1986f) and the creation of the Commission for Public Accounts in 1667 (Kenyon, 1986g) in order to track all of those taxes. This Commission was demanded by the Commons since there was the suspicion that Charles and those in the Lords were embezzling these funds. This is possible since Charles, among others, were struggling with personal finances due to the expenses of the ongoing war. At the same time, there were several trials and dismissals of judges and jurors who were either too harsh regarding the enforcement of the Clarendon Code or who would not enforce the Code at all, letting Quakers and Papists off the hook with no punishment for not being Anglican (Browning, 1966k; Harris, 2005; Kenyon, 1986p). Finally, the Clarendon Code as we refer to it now was completed in 1670 with the passage of the Conventicles Act. This act continued the work of the rest of the Clarendon Code. Specifically, it restricted gatherings of five or more, unless those gathering lived in the same house. Such gatherings were not allowed to discuss religion or government in any way. To be suspected of such a gathering was to be fined. Anyone who preached at such an event was fined at a higher rate. Additionally, this particular statute gave local enforcement officers the right to destroy property as they saw fit in order to capture those who were meeting, as well as persuade those caught to confess by whatever means they chose (Browning, 1966e). By this point, there were huge groups of people all across the religious spectrum, even some who self-identified as Anglican, who were extremely impoverished and many more imprisoned due to the Clarendon Code. In 1672, Charles acted unilaterally again, publishing his Declaration of Indulgence. In essence, this declaration criticized the Clarendon Code enacted by Parliament and ordered a stop on all enforcement of them. He invited all of his subjects to practice their 21 religion according to their own consciences (Browning, 1966m; Kenyon, 1986j). Unfortunately for Charles and all of his subjects, Parliament demanded that he withdraw his declaration in 1673 and he was forced to do so, due to his financial straits (Kenyon, 1986n). Additionally, Parliament followed up their renewed persecution by forcing Charles to accept the Test Acts. In essence, The first Test Act prevented anyone who was a Papist sympathizer or had Catholic leanings from holding any office relating to Parliament (Browning, 1966f; Kenyon, 1986h). The second required anyone holding a public office to attend public Anglican Church services regularly and specifically disavow all beliefs which differed from the Church of England (Browning, 1966g; Kenyon, 1986i). This combination resulted in many of the subjects who trusted his promise of toleration being further punished for their dissenting behavior over that year and then being removed from office. These acts were specifically geared toward anyone who was descended from a Catholic family, particularly a noble family, or anyone who had been convicted of disobeying any of the laws enforcing participation in the Church of England in relation to Catholicism (“English Recusants,” n.d.; Magee, 1938). By this point in English history, the last three openly Catholic rulers that they had seen, Mary, James and Charles I, had each caused havoc in their own ways, from actual bloodshed to financial trouble and true civil unrest. In addition to the specific reigns of Catholic monarchs, there had been dozens of “Popish Plots” and massacres of Protestants by Catholic nobles dating back to the early days of Elizabeth’s reign. Furthermore, such tragedies seemed to occur more often and on a larger scale in extremely Catholic countries, such as Spain and France. Each time that such an event would occur, Parliament and Protestants in power would ensure that everyone was aware (Barron, n.d.; Dillon & 22 Marotti, 2006). As such, there was semi-constant widespread fear of Catholics among every class of the English people. This was particularly true at the top where Parliament recognized how much they had manipulated the population and know how much their power was tied to their religious authority. In 1674, Charles came to a truce with France over the Netherlands, at the request of Parliament. However, they suspected him of coming to a secret agreement with King Louis XIV. We now know that around this period he had decided to convert to Catholicism, just as his brother James, Duke of York had publicly done (Harris, 2005; Kenyon, 1986p). This brought additional concerns regarding Papists in particular gathering in England, though there was also some concern over some of the more extreme Protestant dissenters. In 1676 there was a national census commissioned by Parliament in order to determine the distribution of nonconformists of various types, allowing more specific focus on particular regions for enforcement (Browning, 1966p). Eventually, in November 1680, the Exclusion Bill was passed, which removed James, Duke of York, brother and heir to Charles II, from the line of succession for the crown (Browning, 1966i; Kenyon, 1986m). This was later reversed, and James did inherit the crown from Charles, but at the time, such an act was unheard of for Parliament. The end of Charles’ reign was exemplified by further conflict. Primarily, he faced financial struggles between himself and Parliament, as well as further judicial probing at the power and authority of the Crown (Kenyon, 1986p). Prior to his death in 1685, Charles did eventually convert to Catholicism officially. His brother did inherit and became King James II of England before being deposed as a Catholic. 23 In short, Charles worked to reach a balance similar to that achieved by Elizabeth a century earlier and failed miserably. From before he even returned to England, his stated goal was to protect toleration and reduce the suffering of his people. Since it is clear that he had Catholic leanings for many years, some of the motivation for this is likely selfpreservation. However, his contributions to the philosophical acceptance of differing religious opinion is an interesting portion of his declarations to his subjects. In the end, he failed in all of his goals and left England at least as bad as he found it. Not only did he not achieve his own goals, but he also put the final nail in monarchical sovereignty and prerogative. He was not solely responsible for the power of Parliament, as they had been steadily gaining power since the Magna Carta was chartered in the thirteenth century. Each monarch going back several generations had handed over some amount of power to Parliament, even if only social. This process only accelerated with the ascension of a child and two women, followed by a Catholic Scot and two civil wars. However, he ended up making the same mistake as his father in his relations with Parliament, leading to him handing over even more power. As a result, for every monarch after Charles, Parliament has had substantially more power over financial, religious, military, and judicial matters than the crown (Harris, 2005). 24 NARRATIVE RHETORICAL CRITICAL ANALYSIS Declaration at Breda, April 4, 1660 Before he ever returned to English soil, Charles made it very clear that he wanted political and religious freedom for the people of England. 4 Having spent almost 20 years in France, experiencing the budding Reformation on the Continent, he was very familiar with discussions of religion and politics by various groups (Browning, 1966n; Kenyon, 1986p). With this in mind, his initial Declaration from Breda made such promises as the people of England had never heard before (Browning, 1966j; Kenyon, 1986l). The idea of a public discussion of political policy was nearly unheard of in England, due to strict sedition laws. Religious freedom was not a common phrase and may not have ever been used in such a way in England prior to Charles doing so. His first promise was that his priority would be putting England “into a quiet and peaceable possession…with as little blood and damage to our people as is possible” (Browning, 1966j; Kenyon, 1986l). He then pardoned all subjects who expressed their loyalty to him, particularly those who may have opposed the monarchy when his father had been King. This action went a long way to demonstrate his sincerity to his subjects since there were plenty of crimes which he had the right to punish many of those who had opposed his father. While not specifically related to religion, such a promise was sure to have relieved both English subjects and Parliament and allow for a greater potential for trust between the King and his people. Many of the ministers’ documents have since been lost or restricted due to their fragility. Furthermore, certain language may appear unwieldy due to the historical language. 4 25 The most significant promise that he made at Breda was the declaration of “a liberty to tender consciences, and that no man shall be…called in question for differences of opinion in matter of religion which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom” along with the recognition that there were valid differences of opinion regarding religion (Browning, 1966j; Kenyon, 1986l). Such a statement was groundbreaking in its originality and uniqueness at this time. Since Henry split from Rome, each ruler of England, including Cromwell made it the business of the state to know where each person stood in terms of his or her beliefs, both politically and religiously. For a king, who in all reason, had the right to decimate those who had executed his father and stolen his crown, to return home and promise religious privacy and true variety was likely stunning to many who heard of his declaration, especially those in Parliament. This promise was the first step to religious toleration in that a religious difference of opinion should not be brought to the peacemakers or enforcers, regardless of any of the laws that were previously enacted which demanded such. He concluded his Declaration with a promise to work with Parliament to fulfill each of his promises in the proper course of action. Since arbitrarily passing laws and making changes was a problem that his father, Charles I, had had which led to his execution, by making this promise publicly, he further strengthened the trust that the people and Parliament had in inviting him home out of exile. All in all, the Declaration at Breda put confidence in Charles and indicated to everyone in England that he was the true King of England and prepared them to welcome him home. However, despite the benefits of his other promises, it is clear that religious freedom is his priority in this Declaration. 26 With that in mind, upon his return to England, Charles called “a synod of divines, as the most proper expedient to provide a proper remedy for all those differences and dissatisfactions which had or should arise in matters of religion” (Browning, 1966n). This group primarily consisted of Anglicans and Presbyterians. However, his efforts were not well received, and he immediately ran into those who either did not want a solution at all, did not want Charles to be the one to facilitate it, or who wanted everything resolved without actually solving any of the problems. In response to these concerns, in October 1660, Charles followed this declaration with a more in-depth statement regarding the religious freedom and variety that he had promised. In His Majesty’s Declaration…Concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs at Worcester House, Charles reinforced his promise, specifying that anyone of the Protestant religion and those not of that religion would all be included in his tolerance. He went on to discuss the many places he had lived while in Exile, such as France and Germany, wherein he had many philosophical and religious conversations with different men of learning. As a result, he claimed that no religion in England would startle him or lead him to go back on his promise made at Breda. At this point in his declaration, Charles himself went into some of the similarities and differences of different religious persuasions and further outlined the ways that he would ensure toleration for everyone in England, including several contradictions of previously existing statutes enacted by Parliament as important to the Church of England (Browning, 1966n; Kenyon, 1986p). In the Declaration of Breda, Charles was all-powerful in his authority. His language was exactly what his subjects would expect from their King. He is magnanimous enough to forgive those who have wronged him and his family. He is generous enough to allow 27 Parliament to retain their power, even going as far as to state that Parliament “can best provide for the just satisfaction” of those who had been unpaid or unfairly treated after the war with Ireland and the English Civil War. His use of the Royal “We” is standard for the time and a clear reminder of the Divine Rights of Kings. It is a stark contrast to the mere third person, “his,” used by Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector since he did not gain his position through birth but by corrupting the natural process of leadership in that time. In contrast, Charles’ Declaration begins with a listing of his titles after which point, he does not refer to himself as anything but “we” or “our.” This practice, while subtle, is significant, as it relates to the divinity of the person being referenced. This was particularly important when such declarations would be read in different towns for those who could not read. The final note of Charles’ authority was the close of his declaration. He authenticates the document with “Given under our sign manual and privy signet, / at our court at Breda, / this 4/14 day of April 1660, / in the twelfth year of our reign” (Browning, 1966j; Kenyon, 1986l). He reminds anyone reading or hearing his declaration that he has retained his signet ring, one of the most easily recognized and significant artifacts of the monarchy. He does not acknowledge in any way that he has been in exile but instead gives the impression of power and leisure while in France. Finally, his last line about the year of his reign is a subtle reminder to everyone that by following Cromwell in any way was going against the correct line of succession and corrupting the system. In short, the entire declaration is a reminder of authority and establishes clear, explicit ethos for anyone unsure of Charles coming back to England. 28 In only a few months, we can see some loss of conviction. In his Worcester House Declaration, Charles expresses frustration. Instead of instructing his subjects on the correct behavior, this declaration has a more desperate pathos. While there are still some of the conventions of the Crown found in the Declaration at Breda, many are missing or not as obvious. The entire declaration has more the perception of asking for cooperation instead of ensuring it. In particular, the Royal “We” while present does not shine through as it did in Breda. There are several cases where Charles says “we must do…” or “we will…” in which it is unclear whether he alone is going to do it as the King or whether he is asking his subjects to follow him. The fact that anything is unclear at all is in and of itself an issue when discussing the authority of an English Monarch. Charles does not introduce himself with titles, and he does not refer to his subjects as “Our royal subjects.” He further compounds these mistakes or oversights by telling the entire country, and thereby the world, about his thwarted plans. Combining the tone of the declaration with these issues indicates a near immediate loss of authority upon his return to England. He ends this much longer declaration by expressing hopes for the independence of thought and freedom of religion with little resolution. Finally, he merely signs off with the date and location, without any further reminder of authority. Just as all of the subtle pieces strengthened his position in his Declaration at Breda, the lack of those same pieces in Worcester began the slow decline of Charles’ already limited power and authority. The Act of Uniformity, 1662 The response to Charles’ efforts was swift and harsh. Unfortunately, Charles was not significantly affected at the beginning, whereas his subjects were extremely impacted almost immediately. In 1662, Parliament passed “An Act for the uniformity of public 29 prayers, and administration of sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies; and for establishing the form of making, ordaining and consecrating bishops, priests and deacons in the Church of England.” The title gives a decent summary of the intention of the act. The impact was much more complex. The opening of the Act is a discussion of the state of religion in England. According to an act from the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, along with an accompanying ecclesiastical survey of the time, religion was beneficial to individuals. More importantly though, when English subjects were active in their “Christian conversation,” it increased the wealth and profitability of the realm as a whole (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). In the discussion of their motivation for the Uniformity Act, Parliament pointed to these accepted facts of the time and then stated that “a great number of people in divers parts of this realm…do willfully and schismatically abstain and refused to come to their parish churches…upon the Sundays and…holy days.” With this social progression alone, given the understanding that active church goers benefit society as a whole, there is clear justification for religious reform in Parliament. However, the Act goes on to point out “the great and scandalous neglect of ministers in using the said order or liturgy so set forth…great mischiefs and inconveniences during the times of late unhappy troubles have arisen and grown…to the great decay and scandal of…the Church of England and to the hazard of many souls” (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). With this statement, the issue at hand grows from a few individuals to the system as a whole and the eternal souls of the people of England. With both of these statements of Parliament in the Act of Uniformity, it is worth noting that they do not justify or provide sources for any of the information. It was likely 30 obvious that there was turmoil, but most of it was social and slowly being resolved as religious ideas were being further refined, both in England and on the Continent. Beyond that statement of fact and the citations of Elizabethan information, there is no discussion of source or authenticity. The assurance of Parliament alone was sufficient for this act. This is a clear depiction of the authority of Parliament. In comparing the authority present in just the first couple of paragraphs of this act to the authority of Charles’ second declaration at Worcester house, it is clear that at this time, Parliament had the greater power. They still gave the appearance of deferring to Charles. In the changes to the Book of Common Prayer, they note that Charles commissioned “several bishops and other divines to review…and to prepare such alterations as they thought fit to offer,” indicating that it was not even their idea to start making changes (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). With this statement, they have both shored up their defenses against any accusations of overstepping their bounds of power and shifted any blame for the changes of this act over to Charles for starting the reforms. They even go on to state that “his Majesty, having duly considered, hath fully approved and allowed the same and recommended to this present Parliament…” many changes to the book, as well as other rites, ceremonies, psalms and songs, and ordination of clergymen (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). With those two statements, Parliament has made themselves publicly blameless of all unhappiness of the reforms that they wrought with this act. Immediately after discussing Charles’ culpability for all of their changes, Parliament demands that some requirements for every clergyman of any kind throughout England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, and other dominions of the Crown. Each man must read morning and evening prayers as decided by a particular group of clergymen in 31 Canterbury and York. These ministers must then “openly and publicly before the congregation there assembled declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things said in the book contained and prescribed” with a particular oath (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). If anyone refuses or somehow otherwise is not able to complete this oath as required, they “shall ipso facto be deprived of all his spiritual promotions” (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). For every person who is able to meet these requirements and retain their positions, they are further required to repeat the prayers and oath every month and after every promotion. Due to the inclusion of educational facilities in the religious structure, this statute included not only preachers but also deans, professors, fellows, curates, tutors, schoolmasters, and many others. They must also swear to never raise arms against the King or any part of either the government or the church. From there, the act specifically discusses the punishments for anyone who either does not make the initial oath or who does not make the subsequent oaths. Such punishments in this act particularly include months of imprisonment, pounds of fines, loss of position and housing. These requirements were to remain in place until after 1682, exactly 20 years after the passage of the act. If someone lapsed at any point, there is a different oath, along with the connected punishment, that they would be able to make which would reinstate them. Anyone who did not meet the initial requirements were forever banned from holding any office in a religious or educational capacity “as if he was naturally dead” (Browning, 1966c; Kenyon, 1986d). In short, anyone who foreswore all previous training and oaths as invalid unless they agreed with the new ones were able to remain in their positions. Everyone else would not be allowed to do anything in relation to their current positions ever again, and their 32 training was forfeit as if they had never completed it. Furthermore, any new clergymen from this point forward had a higher standard of conduct than anyone who already had some position. To add insult to injury, foreigners, even those who had permanently moved to England, were not subject to any of these changes, even if they belonged to a different church, or had previously. With the stated goal of better patrolling the actions of the ministers, and through them, the people of England, some sort of oversight makes sense. However, with these changes, it essentially invalidates any previous training and commitments to the church and to God. The major issue with such an invalidation, beyond the mere injustice of it, is that every rite, ceremony, and sacrament that has been performed by all of these divinities and teachers are also invalidated. Every single wedding performed, every child blessed, and every death presided over was never valid according to these oaths and the writings in the new Book of Common Prayer. In essence, every soul that has been saved by these men are now potentially sentenced to limbo. Such a decree is unheard of at this point and was understandably shocking to those who were affected. A couple of other changes made in this act were a return to some services being offered in Latin in Westminster, Winchester, and Eton. All public office holders were required to attend a certain number of specific services, depending on their position. Failure to do so resulted in fines or imprisonment. Each parish was required to buy enough of the new Books of Common Prayer for each of the parishioners, assuming that everyone was now going to at least periodically be present. This additional expense was pushed off on the parishioners themselves, who were required to contribute for the good of the realm. 33 Finally, the Book would be specially translated to Welsh, and an effort would be made to share its words in Wales. Again, some of these requirements and changes were reasonable. When it came down to it, most people did not have a serious issue with anything but the reordination requirements. The widespread effects of that change alone would have impacted nearly every single person in the country. Weddings and baby blessings are not deal breakers, assuming that everyone was still alive. The major issue was for all those who had died in the preceding decades. This number was elevated above normal because England had just come out of a series of Civil Wars, not to mention the issues abroad. Any babies who had been blessed were unaccounted for at this point. Similarly, the souls of anyone who had died of illness, injury, or old age were also potentially damned. In the end, the stated intention of this act was to create some stability and increase the wealth of individuals and the entire country as a whole. The effect was not that at all. Instead of stability, there was uncertainty and confusion over several aspects, particularly around the reordination. There was outrage and frustration over the new book, extra fines, and return to Latin as well as the reordination issue. Despite all of that, the majority of people were willing to try to conform because this act went through the proper process of Parliament. Additionally, because Charles’ implicit backing for all of these changes was made public, it appeared that everyone in both the Lords and the Commons, as well as the new King, believed this was the best choice. Combine those factors and the reference to Elizabeth, and the average English person was convinced of the benefits of this plan. In that way, Parliament approached the issue of 34 religious turmoil and reform with a well thought out plan of attack. The only issue was that it did not work. Declaration of Toleration, 1662 Later in that same year, Charles once again took to his declarations. This time, he published his Declaration in Favour of Toleration. In this declaration, Charles seems to have regained much of his confidence and bearing from Breda. He opens his declaration with a discussion of unwilling punishments for traitors against his person who will have open trials to ensure fairness and guarantee their rights as citizens. He makes a clear point that the only reason these people are being punished is because these people “do daily endeavor to poison the affections of our good people by misleading their understandings” thereby dividing the country and wrongfully encouraging other traitors (Browning, 1966l). After this brief introductory discussion, Charles goes on to discuss the point of his declaration. Instead of pleading with his subjects, Charles goes through a list of complaints that have been brought against him, spending the most time addressing the accusation that he is not fulfilling his promises. He immediately addressed the complaints about the Act of Uniformity and his responsibility for the Act. The main concern that he discussed was that “instead of performing any part of [the solemn promises from Breda] we have added straiter fetters than ever, and new rocks of scandal to the scrupulous [sic]” (Browning, 1966l). Unfortunately, he does little beyond refute the claims of his initiation of the Act. He goes on from there to discuss the negative impacts of the Act of Uniformity on various sects. By the end, he has officially made his promise of Religious Toleration. 35 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, leading up to this time, toleration was “the action of allowing…by authority [or] licence [sic]” or “the action or practice of tolerating or allowing what is not actually approved” (“toleration, n.,” n.d.). There is a record of both of these usages going back to the early- to the mid-sixteenth century. By the mid-seventeenth century, toleration specifically meant the “allowance (with or without limitations), by the ruling power, of the exercise of religion otherwise than in the form officially established or recognized.” In essence, Charles took the general usage of toleration, which was already somewhat new, and began the process of applying it to religion for possibly the first time in recorded history. The demands made by Parliament in the Act of Uniformity served as a harsh counterpoint to the promise of religious privacy and diversity made by Charles when he offered toleration. To some extent, such a contrast was likely a deliberate choice by Parliament. Such a choice would undermine Charles’ authority, thereby both returning any loyalty that he had gained back to Parliament and specify that he did not have “licence [sic]” (“toleration, n.,” n.d.) to promise any kind of toleration on their behalf. By this point, this particular concept of toleration had been in use for over a century so it would be familiar to many (“toleration, n.,” n.d.). As such, in combination with the political maneuvering that had been ongoing for several generations at this point, Parliament’s actions would serve as a clear objection to Charles’ promises. Since Parliament was passing acts while Charles was simply declaring things and could not seem to follow through on any of them, this exchange very clearly demonstrated Charles’ lacking ability to reign on his own. 36 Another issue that Charles ran into with this particular declaration was that he spent about a quarter of it discussing toleration for Papists and not just various Protestant sects. It is important to keep in mind that it was nearly unanimous throughout England that Papists were enemies of the state and should not be trusted at all. As well as behaving like a European and not an Englishman, this effort to extend an olive branch to a group that was nearly universally hated in England set Charles back in all of his efforts. His subjects no longer trusted him to keep his promises and certainly did not trust his motivations. As such, despite working to reaffirm his authority with all of the proper conventions that we saw with the Declaration at Breda, it is unclear whether Charles made any forward progress, despite his offer of toleration. This is particularly true since he was ultimately unable to follow through with his promise. Black Bartholomew’s Day, 1662 Part of the reason that Parliament was so keen to unify and standardize religion in England at this time is due to the variety of beliefs and faiths that had popped up by this time. These groupings include radical versus moderate nonconformists, local religious leaders versus state enforcers, as well as levels of nonconformity within various religious sects. Presbyterians and Puritans were considered to be just as much nonconformists as Catholics or Popish Recusants (Appleby, 2007; Bucholz & Key, 2013; Harris, 2005). However, while the relationships between different sects and between the sects and the state are significant when studying this time period, in specific relation to the Uniformity Act everyone who was considered a nonconformist was equal in their new lesser status and subsequent outrage. As such, every single sect was affected by the Uniformity Act, and their ministers were eventually ejected from their positions. 37 The Great Ejection was St. Bartholomew’s Day, August 24th in 1662. Because some 2000 nonconformist ministers were ejected from their positions, this particular date in 1662 is now called Black Bartholomew’s Day. This was the deadline set by Parliament for all of the requirements to be met in order to retain a position within the Church of England. There were farewell sermons being given almost as soon as the Act of Uniformity was publicized. While it is termed Black Bartholomew’s Day, sermons given starting in May are considered ejection sermons or valedictions, even by those who would retain their positions (Appleby, 2007). Preachers and teachers who knew that they would not conform saw no harm in announcing that intention and encouraging other dissenters to come forward. The legislation made during the Restoration made everyone discontent, including those that it was supposedly helping. While these ministers were not particularly significant individually, and even less so for losing their positions, the sheer number of farewells that happened at the same time created a picture of the religious landscape that was shaped by the state requirements of conformity and the subsequent nonconformist groups (Johnston, 2003). The number and intensity of the nonconformists who made an effort to explain their thoughts ended up shaping religious policy in the end. It took nearly 30 more years, but they created enough of a disruption that change did eventually happen, settling on a balance in the end. While there were many who were ejected and many more who gave sermons on the controversial changes being attempted, the messages in those sermons ranged from outright dissent to subtle questioning of the status quo. The radical sermons went so far as to suggest that the Uniformity Act was the beginning of the apocalypse promised in Revelations in The Bible. The more subtle sermons merely pointed out observations and shared thoughts on change, without instructing or accusing anyone about anything. Others 38 still worked to provide comfort for their congregations, even as they said goodbye. These sermons ranged from arguing for political change and making clear points while others were merely preaching their faith and advising peace in the coming years. One of the first farewell sermons that is recognized as such was given by Richard Baxter mere days after the passage of the Uniformity Act. He spoke primarily to those who wanted to dissent from this new law, saying they “must use their own Reason as discerning Self-Governours, to Judge who is their King, and who is an Usurper, and…what Actions are commanded or forbidden by God and must do accordingly whoever is against it” because “to go against such a Conscience is sin” (Baxter, 1662). He goes on to beseech his followers to follow their conscience but to also remain faithful. Upon the completion of his sermon, he stepped down and left his pulpit empty for his replacement. His reasoning was because the law required teachers to stop preaching immediately, so he would do as the law required while continuing to practice his own faith. Similarly, Thomas Watson questioned the law, asking “Some indeed say we are disloyal, we are seditious…but how ever we must go to heaven through good report and bad report; tis well if we can get to glory though we pass through the pikes” while encouraging his flock to follow it and “to be guided by the guidance of Gods Word and his providence” (Watson, 1662). These ministers and others were peaceful in their admonitions as they left their posts. Other Bartholomeans, or ministers who preached during this time of the Great Ejection, waited as long as they could to leave due to concerns about leaving their congregations without anyone to give sermons. This concern about being left bereft of preaching was certainly a throwback to Catholic tradition because extreme Puritans also made remarks about their congregations only coming to church for the sermon, not to 39 practice their faith (Appleby, 2007) truly. Richard Alleine discussed at length the necessity of ministers in the following of Christ, arguing that “Christians Eyes, as well as their Ears, may help them on in Religion; Or, The Holy Examples of Ministers, should be living Sermons to People” (Alleine, 1662). He goes on to admonish his listeners to follow his teachings and the teachings of the Bible because he does not know when there will be a new minister to take his place. Many ministers had similar concerns. Some gave much longer sermons for their farewells than they would normally do, to the point that they felt the need to apologize. 5 Other gave a series of sermons leading up to their final farewell in August (Appleby, 2007). The majority of the ministers had serious concerns about the souls of their flocks as they were leaving. The radical religious leaders who likened the religious turmoil of the Restoration period to the apocalypse promised in Revelations were the most powerful political body as a whole, of all of the ministers (Johnston, 2003). These apocalyptic warnings were paired with claims of martyrdom and the downtrodden woes of the faithful. William Jenkyn gave one such sermon beginning with “The words of a dying man usually are very serious, weighty, and much regarded: The ensuring Notes being this Preachers last Legacy to his Congregation, a little before his civil, though voluntary death…” (Jenkyn, 1662). As seen in Jenkyn’s sermon, each of these ministers tended to inject a sense of urgency and crisis into their speeches and publications (Cragg, 1957). These same ministers later took specific instances of plague or fire to be indications of such martyrdom and difficulty. 5 See John Galpin and Daniel Bull 40 The legislation following each Popish plot was protective, and even some Catholics were on board with it. It was particularly harsh for the Catholic ministers. There are very few surviving sermons of the Catholic dissenters. However, it is likely that there were never as many Papists who were openly dissenting as there were Protestant nonconformists. The punishments tended to be harsher for Catholics due to the complex past and several Popish Plots throughout the years, dating back to Elizabeth. In contrast to Edmund Calamy’s collection of protestant dissenters during this time period, John Walker published his own tome which discussed the speeches and actions of Catholic and Popish nonconformists prior to the Restoration and into the very beginning of this conflict (Matthews & Calamy, 1988; Matthews & Walker, 1988). These collections are indicative of the political influence that these men were attempting to utilize in their own conflicts with Parliament and the State. It is estimated that over 1000 sermons were given on Black Bartholomew’s Day alone, not accounting for any of the sermons which came before. That point is exactly the one that Calamy was attempting to make to Parliament in his collection, particularly as he discussed the history and actions of each of the ministers who preached on that last day. Part of the power of the ministers was due to Parliament’s own misunderstanding of the situation, as they did not take the time to evaluate the severity of individual nonconformity, particularly of the moderates. Parliament ended up punishing them in the same harsh manner as the radicals. This oversight was one of the many small pieces that made the policy changes of the time so significant. It resulted in making effective enforcement of the many punishments that were required more difficult. 41 CONCLUSION By the end of Charles’ reign, he was in no position to fight with Parliament, due to his reliance on Parliament for funds and authority. The pattern of inconsistent authority and tone in his declarations did not serve Charles well. Additionally, the stricter that Parliament got in an effort to enforce their series of acts further invalidated Charles’ position. By the time of his death, he was unpopular with both Parliament and his own subjects. His brother, James, was in an even more disadvantaged position, being a known Catholic. Parliament made quick work of that issue by passing over James in favor of his daughter, Mary II, and her foreign husband, William of Orange. From his first declaration at Breda until the end of his reign, Charles got progressively less effective. This is easy to see in only the first two years, first when he spoke at Worcester House and then again following the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Ultimately, he was disconnected from his people and unused to the etiquette and practices of the Monarchy. As such, he did not properly address the most important accusations and concerns brought before him but instead fought for his own agenda. Ultimately, that agenda, being religious toleration including Papists, paved the way for Parliament to strip the crown of so much power. Parliament took advantage of Charles’ inexperience and seeming ineptitude. They passed the Uniformity Act in 1662 and put the entire blame at Charles’ feet while painting themselves as saviors of the country. Being more connected with the people, they cited historical facts and studies in order to support their position. Masterfully, as they passed further acts, Parliament continued this process until they had capitalized on the trust of the people and changed the path of the monarchy into the modern era. As a result, many of the 42 ministers spent as much time criticizing Charles and the Papists as they did the acts and changes themselves. Upon the seating of William and Mary on the throne, many things immediately changed. The Act of Toleration was passed in 1689. This act essentially pardoned anyone who had been punished under all legislation dating back to before Cromwell and removed the punitive measures that had been building up. There was not complete toleration, but most Protestant sects were able to practice openly. Papists were still strictly watched and no popular among in governmental decisions or among the public. Having a foreign religious leader was a conflict of interest in the eyes of most people. Even most of the Protestant sects did not have a Pope or similar leader in a different country making determinations about daily practices. While there was now peace between Parliament and the Monarchs, it was very clear who held the power in that relationship. For Parliament to pass over a male heir in favor a female lower on the line of succession was and still is unheard of outside of the Glorious Revolution. The fact that a foreigner was preferable to the heir was indicative of the relationship between James and Parliament in the first place. That was the final straw that permanently decided the balance of power between the legislature and the executive powers in England. Limitations of the Narrative Approach By requiring so much contextual information to frame the texts, there is the possibility of overwhelming the reader with unfamiliar concepts and language, thereby burying the arguments in necessary context. A singular textual analysis of one or even two 43 texts, from one perspective, may give a more direct reading of one particular viewpoint. Such an analysis would likely require less contextual information because the focus would be narrower. Even so, it is difficult to include enough detail to ensure that a modern reader can truly understand the historical society and the relevance of such a debate. This is particularly true for an American reader, who may not be familiar with religious reform first hand. Nor is an American reader likely to be familiar with any kind of appointed or inherited governmental body, such as the Monarchy and the House of Lords. Be that as it may, a more direct approach may provide a clearer picture of one group or another, thereby requiring limited context. A narrative analysis of a historical conflict requires so much context that it inhibits extended research that could contribute to the conversation. One example would be to examine the allowance of so much publication in a time when printing was somewhat new, and the restrictions on printer were extremely high and getting stricter every year. Future Research When considering a time period such as the Restoration and three different groups to focus on, there are always more documents to be considered. The intertextual analysis could always be expanded and continue to add more to the discussion. In particular, there could be several sections of research about the ministers themselves. Expanding that section to include the specific actions and reactions of different sects would increase the insights that could be gained in the argument as it is. 6 Similarly, there are political and social documents prior to the Restoration of the Monarchy and after the Glorious One group that may be interesting would be the Anglicans or conformists. Examining why they chose to conform and the difference in their treatment would provide an interesting contrast to the nonconformists. 6 44 Revolution that could contribute to the influences and impacts of this conflict. International texts from Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, the American Colonies, and many more could also provide insight into factors beyond the religious that impacted Charles’ conflict with Parliament. 7 Such an expansion would overwhelm this paper, but a longer discussion would allow for such an increase. Additionally, someone who may be interested in the modern political scene may be able to find a similar debate in contemporary news and make comparisons about the historical and modern situations. With such an analysis, given the outcome of the Restoration conflict, one may be able to provide some insight or predictions about the current political direction. Such research could include the Irish war with England, both prior to the English Civil Wars and after this time period. Scotland had similar military conflicts around this time period, and following the Glorious Revolution when the throne shifted out of Stuart control. Since Charles lived in France and there were both treaties and wars with them throughout the Restoration, such documents would provide a continental view of the conflict. Similarly, the American Colonists wrote quite a bit about this time and conflict, much of it tying into the American Revolution a century later. 7 45 Bibliography Alleine, R. (1662). The godly mans portion and sanctuary opened, in two sermons, preached August 17. 1662. London. Appleby, D. J. (2007). Black Bartholomew’s Day: Preaching, Polemic and Restoration Nonconformity. In Politics Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Barron, D. (n.d.). Role of Anti-Catholicism in England in the 1670s. Retrieved from http://www.moyak.com/papers/popish-plot-england.html Baxter, R. (1662). The English nonconformity: as under King Charles II. and King James II. Truly stated and argued. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966a). 7 Car. II, cap. 2: An Act for Restraining Nonconformists from Inhabiting in Corporations. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 382–384). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966b). 12 Car. II, cap. 14: An Act for a Perpetual Anniversary Thanksgiving on the Nine and Twentieth Day of May. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 61–62). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966c). 14 Car. II, cap. 4: An Act for the Uniformity of Public Prayers, and Administration of Sacraments, and Other Rites and Ceremonies; And for Establishing the Form of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons in the Church of England. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 377–382). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966d). 14 Car. II, cap. 33: An Act for Preventing the Frequent Abuses in Printing Seditious, Treasonable and Unlicensed Books and Pamphlets and for Regulating of Printing and Printing Presses. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 67–69). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966e). 22 Car. 11, cap. 1: An Act to Prevent and Suppress Seditious Conventicles. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 384–386). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966f). 25 Car. II, cap. 2: An Act for Preventing Dangers which may Happen from Popish Recusants. In English Historical Documents: 16601714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 389–391). New York, NY: Routledge. 46 Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966g). 30 Car. II, stat. 2, cap. 1: An Act for the More Effectual Preserving the King’s Person and Government by Disabling Papists from Sitting in Either House of Parliament. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 391–394). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966h). A Proclamation of Both Houses of Parliament for Proclaiming of His Majesty King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland Defender of the Faith. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 58–59). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966i). An Act for Securing of the Protestant Religion by Disabling James, Duke of York, to Inherit the Imperial Crown of England and Ireland and the Dominions and Territories Thereunto Belonging. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 113–114). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966j). Declaration of Breda, 1660. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 57–58). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966k). English Historical Documents: 1660-1714 (Reprint). In Vol. VI (Reprint). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966l). His Majesty’s Declaration to all His Loving Subjects. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 371–374). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966m). His Majesty’s Declaration to all His Loving Subjects. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 387–388). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966n). His Majesty’s Declaration to all His Loving Subjects of his Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales Concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 365–370). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966o). Order of the Lords and Commons for the exhumation of Oliver Cromwell, 1660. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, p. 62). New York, NY: Routledge. Browning, A. (Ed.). (1966p). The Number of Freeholders in England, Conformists, Nonconformists and Papists. In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714: Vol. VI (Reprint, pp. 413–416). New York, NY: Routledge. 47 Bucholz, R., & Key, N. (2013). Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History (2 edition). Wiley-Blackwell. Burgchardt, C. R., & Jones, H. A. (Eds.). (2017). Readings in Rhetorical Criticism, 5th edition (5th edition). Strata Publishing, Inc. Clair, R. P., Wilhoit, E., Green, R. J., Palmer, C., Russell, T., & Swope, S. A. (2015). Occlusion, Confusion, and Collusion in the Conversion Narrative, Religion Exemplified in the Life of Poor Sarah. Journal of Communication & Religion, 38(4), 54–72. Cragg, G. R. (1957). Puritanism in the Period of the Great Persecution, 1660-1688. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/401264/puritanism-in-the-periodof-the-great-persecution Dillon, A., & Marotti, A., F. (2006). Religious Ideology and Cultural Fantasy: Catholic and Anti-Catholic Discourses in Early Modern England. History, 91(303), 456– 457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-229X.2006.373_31.x English Recusants. (n.d.). Retrieved from Catholic Encylopedia website: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677a.htm Evans, V. N. (1987). Benjamin Colman and Compromise: An Analysis of Transitional Puritan Preaching. Journal of Communication & Religion, 10(1), 1–8. Fisher, W. R. (2017). Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument. In C. R. Burgchardt & Hillary A. Jones (Eds.), Readings in Rhetorical Criticism, 5th edition (5th edition). Strata Publishing, Inc. Flantzer, S. (2017, April 6). When the Monarch Dies: Proclamation of The New Monarch. Retrieved from Unofficial Royalty website: http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/when-the-monarch-dies-proclamation-of-thenew-monarch/ Harris, T. (2005). Restoration: Charles II and his Kingdoms, 1660-1685. London: Penguin Books. Hinderaker, A. (2018). And the Prayer of Faith Shall Save the Sick: An Intertextual Analysis of the Narrative of Faith Healing in the Media. Journal of Communication & Religion, 41(2), 93–109. Jenkyn, W. (1662). The burning yet un-consumed bush, or, The holinesse of places discuss’d. 48 Johnston, W. (2003). The Patience of the Saints, the Apocalypse, and Moderate Nonconformity in Restoration England. Canadian Journal of History, 38(3), 505. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986a). 12 Car. II, c. I2: An Act for confirmation of judicial proceedings, 1660. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 344–347). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986b). 12 Car. II, c. II: An Act of free and general pardon, indemnity and oblivion, 1660. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 339–344). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986c). 13 Car. II, c. 6: An Act declaring the sole right of the militia to be in the King, 1661. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, p. 349). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986d). 14 Car. II c. 4: An Act for the uniformity of public prayers and administration of sacraments and other rites and ceremonies (The Uniformity Act, 1662). In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 353–356). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986e). 17 Car 11, cap. 1: An Act for Granting the Sum of Twelve Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds to the King’s Majesty for his Present Further Supply. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 364–366). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986f). 18 & 19 Car. II, c. 13: An Act for granting the sum of twelve hundred, fifty six thousand three hundred forty seven pounds thirteen shillings to the King’s Majesty towards the maintenance of the present war. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, p. 366). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986g). 19 & 20 Car. II, c. 1: An Act for taking the accounts of the several sums of money therein mentioned. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 366–370). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986h). 25 Car. II, cap. 2: An Act for Preventing Dangers which may Happen from Popish Recusants 1673. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 385–386). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986i). 30 Car. II, stat. 2, cap. 1: An Act for the More Effectual Preserving the King’s Person and Government by Disabling Papists from Sitting 49 in Either House of Parliament, 1678. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 386–387). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986j). His Majesty’s Declaration to all his loving subjects [15 March 1672]. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 382–383). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986k). His Majesty’s declaration to all his loving subjects, 26 December 1662. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 379–382). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986l). The Declaration of Breda, 4 April 1660. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 331–332). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986m). The Exclusion Bill, November 1680. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 387–389). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986n). The King’s surrender, 1673. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 383–384). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986o). The Oath to the Lord Protector, 18 January 1658. In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition, pp. 330–331). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Kenyon, J. P. (Ed.). (1986p). The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. liberty, n.1. (n.d.). In OED Online. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/107898 Luther, M. (2009). Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, 1. Magee, B. (1938). The English recusants: a study of the post-reformation Catholic survival and the operation of the recusancy laws. Retrieved from http://archive.org/details/MN5014ucmf_0 50 Matthews, A. G., & Calamy, E. (1988). Calamy revised: being a revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of the ministers and others ejected and silenced, 1660-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Matthews, A. G., & Walker, J. (1988). Walker revised: being a revision of John Walker’s Sufferings of the clergy during the Grand Rebellion, 1642-60. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Medel, I. L., & Ferguson, D. (2018). The Apostle Paul and the Early Practice of Public Relations. Journal of Communication & Religion, 41(3), 66–80. Middleton, J. (2004a). Charles I. In World Monarchies and Dynasties (pp. 168–169). Armonk, United States: Routledge. Middleton, J. (2004b). Edward VI. In World Monarchies and Dynasties (pp. 261–262). Armonk, United States: Routledge. Middleton, J. (2004c). James I. In World Monarchies and Dynasties (pp. 454–455). Armonk, United States: Routledge. Middleton, J. (2004d). Mary I. In World Monarchies and Dynasties (p. 583). Armonk, United States: Routledge. Newcombe, D. G. (1995). Henry VIII and the English Reformation. London, UK: Routledge. Ryrie, A. (2003). The Gospel and Henry VIII : Evangelicals in the Early English Reformation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Spufford, M. (Ed.). (1995). The World of Rural Dissenters, 1520-1725 (First Edition edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. toleration, n. (n.d.). In OED Online. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/202988 Wachs, A. (2018). Platonic Rhetoric and the Art of Faith Production. Journal of Communication & Religion, 41(4), 36–51. Watson, T. (1662, August 17). A pastors love expressed to a loving people. Watts, M. (1978). The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.