Nonconformity in restoration England: the effects of religious policy change

Following the reign of King Henry VIII, England was rife with religious turmoil. The subsequent monarchs only exacerbated the issue. Over a century later, following more than a decade of Civil Wars and a secular leader, England welcomed King Charles II back to the throne. Charles returned to England ready to make large scale changes to the social, political, and religious landscape. Parliament did not welcome Charles' intended changes and were unwilling to work with him. With the Glorious Revolution, Parliament permanently shifted the balance of power away from the monarchy. In this paper, I will argue that the conflict between Charles and Parliament over religion resulted in widespread political and religious changes in England. Through the analysis and discussion of political documentation, I will make conclusions about the intentions of both Charles and Parliament. As a counterpoint to their intentions, I will utilize the sermons and journals of dissenting ministers to analyze the impacts of specific policy changes.

NONCONFORMITY IN RESTORATION ENGLAND: THE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOUS POLICY CHANGE 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 History Approved: ______________________________ Professor Nadja Durbach Thesis Faculty Supervisor _____________________________ Professor Benjamin Cohen Chair, Department of History _______________________________ Professor Erik Hinderaker Honors Faculty Advisor _____________________________ Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Dean, Honors College May 2019 Copyright © 2019 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Following the reign of King Henry VIII, England was rife with religious turmoil. The subsequent monarchs only exacerbated the issue. Over a century later, following more than a decade of Civil Wars and a secular leader, England welcomed King Charles II back to the throne. Charles returned to England ready to make large scale changes to the social, political, and religious landscape. Parliament did not welcome Charles’ intended changes and were unwilling to work with him. With the Glorious Revolution, Parliament permanently shifted the balance of power away from the monarchy. In this paper, I will argue that the conflict between Charles and Parliament over religion resulted in widespread political and religious changes in England. Through the analysis and discussion of political documentation, I will make conclusions about the intentions of both Charles and Parliament. As a counterpoint to their intentions, I will utilize the sermons and journals of dissenting ministers to analyze the impacts of specific policy changes. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 4 HISTORIOGRAPHY 16 RESTORTATION POLICY 19 Leading to Uniformity 22 Uniformity Expanded 40 BIBLIOGRAPHY 50 iii 1 INTRODUCTION In the modern world, particularly in America, the government controls policy, the justice system, taxation, and other national concerns. Independent of the government, individuals have the opportunity to choose what they believe, what they want to talk about, whether they identify with a different cultural or religious group, as well as many other facets of their daily lives. In 17th century England, individuals did not make these choices. By and large, these were national decisions. There was one church, and everyone in England was expected to not only belong but participate in that single church. Furthermore, when something needed to change in that national church, the legislature, also known as Parliament, was the one to determine what those changes were and how they impacted society at large. By the 17th century, England had gone through centuries of discontent and internal conflict. Before the 16th century, politics were the primary focus of such conflicts. Though still divisive and challenging for the people, political maneuvering was familiar, and most people were comfortable with such conflicts. However, through all of the earlier conflict, people of all sides could agree on their faith in the Roman Catholic Church. By the beginning of the 16th century, the political turmoil had resolved into a tentative peace. However, shortly thereafter, religion became unsteady and unreliable. After more than a century of religious, political, and international conflicts, King Charles II returned to his throne to heal his country once and for all. Unfortunately for him, it was not as simple as he had intended. The subsequent conflict between Charles and Parliament over religion revolutionarily shifted the balance of power toward Parliament and the people and away from the Crown. Not only did it not restore the traditional rights 2 and responsibilities of the monarchy which had been disrupted by the Civil Wars and Cromwell’s actions, but it further removed the monarch from those traditions. In this paper, I will examine the impact of religious policy change in Restoration England. Prior to the Restoration, English political tradition gave the King final authority in most things, and religion was not self-determined at all. By the end of the Restoration period, Parliament had taken final control over the government and thereby the country, leaving the monarch with little actual authority. Using state documents from both Parliament and King Charles II, I will analyze the intended effects of individual policies. According to Parliament, the intent was to bring peace and prosperity to England through a single uniform religion. According to Charles, the goal was to bring liberty and freedom of choice to the people of England through open discussion and many options for religion. Comparing the different intentions of Charles and Parliament, I will use sermons and journal entries of non-conformist ministers around England to make conclusions about the results of the final policy changes. In short, the policies were unsuccessful and created much unhappiness and discontent throughout England, before finally leading to Parliament taking control. With all of these insights, I will then discuss the way religious policy changes in Restoration England permanently reshaped religious practice and political structure in England. By the end of this conflict between Parliament, the Crown, and the ministers of England, the balance of power had shifted and permanently restructured England’s political authority, and religion was completely different than anyone had intended. It was neither entirely tolerant, as Charles wished, nor was it 3 entirely uniform, as Parliament demanded, but was made up of a limited number of Protestant sects. 1 This paper serves as one part of a two-part analysis of policy change in England. This is a historical examination of the conflict and its significance, while the other part is a communication analysis of argumentation. As such, there are similarities between the two parts, particularly in regards to historical context and documentation. 1 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT Since before the establishment of England as a country by William the Conqueror, the British Isles were primarily Roman Catholic with strong ties to the Holy Roman Empire and Rome through the alliances and marriages of their respective nobles. This religious stability was vital centuries later during the War of the Roses when the line of succession was unclear in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. 2 When every person had to choose between different kings, they could all still agree on their faith. King Henry VII worked hard to bring peace to the land when he took the throne. 3 When Martin Luther famously posted his 95 Theses at Wittenberg Castle in 1517 4, the Pope named King Henry VIII “Defender of the Faith.” 5 However, soon after Henry VIII altered the course of English history and Anglican religious practices, renewing much of the turmoil his father had ended. 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. Unhappy with his marriage and his own inability to produce a male heir, Henry requested a divorce through the Catholic tradition. However, since his marriage was already complicated, religiously, personally, and politically, the Pope refused to grant a divorce. Henry then took control of the Church in England and granted himself a divorce. 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 Pryce, Watts, and John Lovett Watts, “Identity and Morality: Power and Politics During the Wars of the Roses.” 3 Nolan, “England.” 4 Luther, “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.” 5 Newcombe, Henry VIII and the English Reformation. 2 5 becoming the “Supreme Head” of his church. It was this action that brought religious authority under the umbrella of the British government. Prior to Henry’s actions, everyone was Catholic, but religion was separate from the state. England’s political sphere dealt with internal issues, such as taxes and military actions, among others. The Christian religion was considered to be global and therefore outside of the control of the English government. Henry removed this separation and brought the church directly under the purview of the state. This new 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. 6 Furthermore, by putting the control of the church under the power of the King and his advisors in Parliament, Henry intended to bring England closer together, with a new sense of solidarity and uniformity. 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. 7 Despite the extreme changes that Henry ultimately wrought on religion in England, he did not indeed alter the everyday practices of his subjects. Other than taking over the authority 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. 8 Upon his death, Edward VI, Henry’s nine-year-old son, assumed the throne in 1547 while maintaining his fathers’ title as Supreme Head. Edward was born after the break from Rome and was considered a fierce Protestant, despite his youth. Under Edward, his Bucholz and Key, Early Modern England 1485-1714; Newcombe, Henry VIII and the English Reformation. 7 Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry VIII : Evangelicals in the Early English Reformation. 8 Newcombe, Henry VIII and the English Reformation. 6 6 regents worked to make the Church of England experience a true Protestant reformation, moving further away from the Catholic tradition. 9 However, just as this reformation was in full swing, Edward died in 1553 and his elder sister, Mary I, took over the throne. Being born and raised Catholic, she reinstituted Catholicism and restored papal influence in England, asking for forgiveness for the sins of her father. 10 She also married Philip of Spain in an effort to instill new Catholic loyalty and support abroad. This marriage was also a show of solidarity with the Catholic society outside of England, of which Spain was a primary leader. 11 Despite some support for Catholicism in England, through her actions, she ejected thousands of priests and burned hundreds more men and women as so-called “heretics” when her subjects wished to retain their protestant ties, or simply disagreed with her decisions as a woman. 12 Mary died not having solved any of the problems she had inherited nor those that she had created and with no children of her own. 13 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. 14 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. Despite this, Elizabeth I ruled for 45 years, maintaining one constant religion for her entire reign. This constancy allowed Middleton, “Edward VI.” Early Modern England, 109. 11 Middleton, “Mary I.” 12 Early Modern England, 111. 13 Middleton, “Mary I.” 14 Early Modern England, 125. 9 10 7 Protestantism to spread and become expected for the people in England. While not everyone agreed with Elizabeth or wanted to follow her lead into Protestantism, all of England appreciated the stability she eventually brought to the entire country. Despite Elizabeth’s Protestantism, Catholics were still allowed to practice their religion openly with minimal restrictions as a result of being outside of the Church of England. However, after the reign of Mary, many of the people who had remained in England were afraid of having another Catholic monarch on the throne. Numerous Catholics and Papists making attempts on Elizabeth’s life throughout the early years of her life only exacerbated this fear. As a result, even those who had more Catholic beliefs tended to avoid open practice or individual declarations of faith. 15 This recalcitrance regarding Catholics became characteristic of English society and lasted well into the 18th century. In England, in the 16th century, it was not acceptable for women or children to rule alone without input from certain high-ranking nobility. As a result, following the succession of Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth there was the expectation of increased power for those nobility. As such, both houses of Parliament and the Privy Council had become accustomed to having increased authority at the political table to a much higher degree than they had ever been before Henry’s death. The inherent desire for more power often seen in national politics only exacerbated this expectation. Regardless of having an inherently weak monarch of a woman or child, having an established Parliament made up of both the aristocracy with a new level of power and elected representatives of the Anon., The History of Popish-Sham-Plots from the Reign of Queen Elizabeth to This Present Time.; Elizabeth I, “The Last Speech and Thanks of Queen Elizabeth of Ever Blessed Memory, to Her Last Parliament, after Her Delivery from the Popish Plots, &c.”; C. and Danckertsz., “Popish Plots and Treasons.” 15 8 landed gentry16 served to engender more trust among English subjects and when dealing with international issues abroad. 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 particularly advocate for either religious extreme but allowed them to all coexist together. With this method, England survived in relative religious consistency for most of a century. 17 That said, there were constant rumors of James being a closet Catholic or Romanist. Some of these rumors were simply borne from the fact that many Scots, including his mother before her death, were fierce Roman Catholics at this time. 18 These rumors along with his disinterest in politics or actively ruling near the end of his reign led to rising tensions among the people and within the government. 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 almost immediately. He instituted new liturgy and theology that, while officially Protestant, had much more overlap with Catholic practice and belief than that which had been seen under Mary’s reign. 19 With these changes, he caused 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 landed gentry were considered to be the working class and thereby representative of the common opinion since the common people of England did not vote. 17 Early Modern England, 217. 18 Middleton, “James I.” 19 Early Modern England, 237-238. 16 9 the people of England, Charles I was at odds with much of Parliament throughout these Civil Wars. 20 By this point in English history, the last three openly Catholic rulers who had been on the throne, 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 such an event would occur, Parliament and Protestants in power would ensure everyone was made aware. 21 As such, there was an ongoing widespread fear of Catholics among every class of the English people. 22 This fear was particularly prevalent at the top where Parliament recognized how much they had manipulated the population and knew how much their power was tied to their religious authority. The wars resulted in the execution of Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth, also called the Interregnum. The Commonwealth was considered entirely secular and had no official church establishment. 23 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 massive expansion of Protestant religious diversity through the Middleton, “Charles I.” Dillon and Marotti, “Religious Ideology and Cultural Fantasy”; Barron, “Role of Anti-Catholicism in England in the 1670s.” 22 This fear was always a consideration but went through periods of increased activity when Papists were more politically and socially active. 23 Early Modern England, 266. 20 21 10 establishment of many different sects exceptionally quickly. Under Cromwell, there were fewer outright restrictions on Catholic actions, but the political and social tensions remained active among the population. As such, there was some growth in Catholic communities, but it was more limited than other religious denominations. 24 Many of these religious sects clashed with the Commonwealth government. When Cromwell died, he left his son to follow in his footsteps. However, the second Cromwell was not nearly as skilled as the first and Parliament reestablished control of the government. The Interregnum formally ended in 1660 when Parliament invited Charles to return and take over the Monarchy again. Now termed the Restoration, this transition saw the return of the monarchy as well as Parliament and the Privy Council. With the restoration of divine authority 25 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 newly formed sects could not coexist with the dictations of the government regarding religious practice. In an effort to prevent further religious turmoil, Parliament passed several acts to unify religion throughout the country. However, much of this had an adverse effect on religion, insulting many of the ministers and priests or simply ejecting them from their positions. 26 All of these religious changes dating back to the end of Henry’s reign went through Parliament. The religious changes that did not go through Parliament ultimately failed and resulted in the English Civil Wars. While in the modern world, there is now an C. and Danckertsz., “Popish Plots and Treasons”; Elizabeth I, “The Last Speech and Thanks of Queen Elizabeth of Ever Blessed Memory, to Her Last Parliament, after Her Delivery from the Popish Plots, &c.”; Anon., The History of Popish-Sham-Plots from the Reign of Queen Elizabeth to This Present Time. 25 While the true divinity of Charles’ authority is questionable to say the least, the tradition of the monarch was based in the divine right of kings to rule over their subjects in God’s path. As such, in terms of political stability, Charles’ return was an act of God and celebrated as such throughout England. 26 Early Modern England, 281. 24 11 established goal of separating church and state, such a concept was not even an idea in the minds of English subjects. The idea of the divine right of the monarch or another political figure to rule over religion was well established by this point. When a monarch wants to change something about the Church of England, they go through Parliament. Prior to the split from Rome, religious changes came from Rome but afterwards, religion was 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 were controversial or not widely supported, most of the subjects would follow them and continue to support the monarch for doing things the right way. Through each of these changes over 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 New World, 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; however, the practices, beliefs, and cultures of each of these groups were unique in their journey to salvation through Christ. Some of these groups have since become the Puritans, the Calvinists, the Anabaptists, the Lutherans, and the Quakers, 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 were persecuted by both groups, as well as other minor sects, throughout English history. 12 The official state religion was Anglicanism. However, as with any social practice, tradition was essential and hundreds of years of Catholicism did not just disappear with even a century of protestant laws. Therefore, some traditions remained important in Anglican practices, despite being considered Catholic to the more liberal Protestants. Similarly, there was far too much Protestant humanism and reform for those who were more traditionally Catholic. We have since divided this spectrum up with the names above and many more, but at the time this was all a spectrum of Christian faith and reform, with much more fluidity between them than we have now. 27 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 continually changing and came to a head with the Restoration. Additionally, 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 regarding religion, fewer people were considered the right kind of Christian so more became dissenters and There is continued debate about specific traditions and practices, with additional sects branching off and making specific reform. However, there are currently thousands of different Christian religions. In the 17th century, there were only a handful of Christian religions outside of Catholicism and the associated Orthodoxies. Each of these reform religions were still establishing their practices and traditions so there was much more fluidity between them. Furthermore, there were several different names for the same religion: Episcopal and Anglican, Huguenot, Presbyterian, and Calvinist, etc. and each name meant something a little bit different. 27 13 unlawful citizens. As tensions continued to rise and escalate, the government worked to maintain control and unify the subjects as efficiently as possible. 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 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 repeatedly made over several decades, and there were entire groups of people who were paying fines regularly. Punishments started as fines and increased to imprisonment. If you received too many fines or could not pay them, you could be imprisoned or start losing "privileges" such as serving in public office. Publishing any document arguing about 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 14 Wars occurred, dissenters were being disfigured, hanged, burned alive, and drawn and quartered, depending on the region and the level of dissent. By the Restoration, 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 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 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 an onerous 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. 15 Overall, the communities, which had been close-knit, were lost. Vast numbers of people were unemployed, in prison, or homeless, along with their families. The tentative potential for peace that had existed in the Interregnum was destroyed in the early years of the Restoration, and the results of those acts that caused the changes were markedly different than what had been intended, both by Charles and Parliament. 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. By the end of the Restoration era, Parliament had taken control of the country, thereby reducing the authority of the monarchy. 16 HISTORIOGRAPHY Julia Emmons argues that every change of policy made after Charles’ return followed his every whim and desire. 28 This is the only argument regarding politics with which I disagree. Emmons discusses the different factions and political groups that were active through the first decade of the Restoration, which is a separate topic than I am discussing. That said, her premise is precisely contrary to mine, thereby providing an interesting space for discussion. Much of the scholarship regarding religion and nonconformity in Restoration England makes a point of delineating between the specific groups of religious peoples and faiths and arguing about the historical religious and political implications of their beliefs. These groupings include radical versus moderate nonconformists 29, local religious leaders versus state enforcers, the changes throughout the conflict 30, as well as levels of nonconformity within various religious sects. 31 There is even some discussion Emmons, “The Politics of Factions in the Early Restoration Court of Charles II, 1660-1667.” Clark, History of English Nonconformity from Wiclif to the Close of the Nineteenth Century,. Clark focuses his work on the driving force behind the various nonconformist sects. His discussion of the history of English nonconformity provides the background to the divisions that were formed before and during the English Civil War that carried over into the Restoration period. The divisions and implications described by Clark establish a clear set of expectations and criteria for the Protestant leanings during this time period. 30 Beaver, “Conscience and Context.” Beaver follows a different set of divisions by examining the conflict within the town of Tewkesbury during the time of the Popish Plot. Through this analysis, Beaver connects the religious disagreements within England during the Restoration. Beaver argues that men who were not radical at the start of the Restoration shifted through the conflicts, dividing towns and creating further deep-seated mistrust among the English people. 31 Johnston, “The Patience of the Saints, the Apocalypse, and Moderate Nonconformity in Restoration England.” Johnston, by examining the sermons of pastors, ministers and preachers, as well as other writers of the time, creates a picture of the religious landscape that is shaped by the state requirements of conformity and the subsequent nonconformist groups. He makes a specific distinction between moderates and radicals, indicating that the moderates do not get enough attention and are often not fully considered. 28 29 17 of the relationship between different groups within the state. 32However, in general, the scholarship focuses on the relationships between a specific political opinion and a particular sect, or some variation thereof. Scholars have also discussed the public choices and corresponding actions of dissenting ministers. 33 The combination of these different examinations creates a colorful picture of the religious landscape of England during the Reformation but does not sufficiently address the relationship between the ministers’ reactions and the lasting political changes between Parliament and the monarchy. However, while the relationships between different sects and between the sects and certain individuals or political parties are examined and analyzed, the general shift in religious practice across the many different groups has not been given much attention. Even the extent of the political ties of the dissenting sects to the Restoration Parliament and monarchical regime are not discussed in any great detail. Scholars tend to either focus specifically on the rulers and influential figures in England, ignoring or passing over the big picture or vice versa, passing over the broader impacts of legislation. This paper will discuss the effects of Parliamentary actions on religious practice and the balance of monarchical power. Collins, “The Restoration Bishops and the Royal Supremacy.” Collins discusses the religious climate of England upon Charles' return, specifically focusing on the bishops in the Church of England who were suspicious of Charles’ rumored Catholic sympathies. Collins analyzes the hostilities between the episcopate and the court. 33 Appleby, Black Bartholomew’s Day. Appleby follows the progression of several different ministers and sects into nonconformity by isolating the events and sermons leading up to, happening on, and following St. Bartholomew’s Day in 1662. He goes so far as to define several in order to create a scale that rates the groups from radical to conformists, focusing on the Puritans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians as well as the various conformist and nonconformist sects of Anglicanism. By doing this, he creates a scale that clearly delineates the types of Protestantism, furthering his argument of the differences seen between them. 32 18 The combination of these different examinations creates a full picture of the religious landscape of England during the Reformation. However, while the relationships between different sects and between the sects and the state are examined and analyzed, the lasting impacts on the religious practices of England are never fully discussed. Even the extent to which the political ties of the sects to the Restoration Parliament and monarchical regime are not discussed. Many of these groups and sects of religious dissenters are either ignored or grouped into the larger conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism when it comes to the truly influential connections. Due to these aspects which the scholarship does not address, the intentions of the legislators are difficult to compare to the results that they wrought. The political scene of England, while complex, had a considerable level of influence on the legislation that was passed, and the execution of such legislation. In particular, the relationship between Charles and Parliament reshaped both the balance of power and the new religious landscape in England. Ultimately, the conflicting intentions of Parliament and Charles about the ministers’ reactions restructured the English political landscape. 19 RESTORATION POLICY Upon Restoration to the Monarchy, King Charles II immediately ran into trouble and conflict with Parliament over money, power, and, primarily, religion. Before he was officially restored, he made a declaration at Breda, France 34 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 in order for all of his subjects to know what he had promised. 35 This later publication was a combination of an attempt at public relations and an indication of personal authority as the reigning monarch. His 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 accepted as the next King of England. 36 This act was the first step in welcoming Charles back to England as such a Proclamation is traditionally 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 stem off any other potential claimants to the throne creating Browning, “Declaration of Breda, 1660”; Kenyon, “The Declaration of Breda, 4 April 1660.” Browning, “Worcester House Declaration, 1660”; Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution. 36 Browning, “Proclamation of Charles II, 1660.” 34 35 20 confusion. 37 It also reinforced that both the House of Lords and the House of Commons supported the inheritor of the throne and would stand against any opposing claimants. Parliament followed this show of support with the passage of the Act for Perpetual Thanksgiving, which celebrated the date on which Charles returned to England from Exile. 38 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. 39 Parliament paired these welcoming acts with various 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, as well as their subsequent “execution.” 40 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 that had not yet been enforced. 41 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. 42 With such a welcome in the first year of the Restoration, it appeared that Charles had been accepted back to England with open arms. Such a welcome was accompanied Flantzer, “When The Monarch Dies.” Browning, “Act for Perpetural Thanksgiving, 1660.” 39 Kenyon, “13 Car. II, c. 6: An Act Declaring the Sole Right of the Militia to Be in the King, 1661.” 40 Browning, “Order of the Lords and Commons for the Exhumation of Oliver Cromwell, 1660.” 41 Kenyon, “12 Car. II, c. I2: An Act for Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings, 1660.” 42 Kenyon, “12 Car. II, c. II: An Act of Free and General Pardon, Indemnity and Oblivion, 1660.” 37 38 21 by many in Parliament renouncing the behavior of those involved in Parliament 20 years earlier, particularly those who were advocates of executing Charles I. Parliament’s welcome of Charles II was an effort to pair their renunciations with actions to indicate sincerity. Following the upheaval of the Civil Wars and the tyranny of Cromwell, Parliament was making every effort to rewrite the previous decades out of history. Given that motivation, it is possible that they did not take into account the problems that inviting a monarch who grew up on the Continent and may have been Catholic would create. Unfortunately, they failed in their attempt to erase the past and 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 almost 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, 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 able to ally with France successfully. However, as Spain lost dominion over the continent, France moved in to take over as the primary Catholic power in Europe. 43 As such, Charles’ desire to ally with them at all, regardless of the reasoning, concerned Parliament as they were anxious about his religious faith and his loyalty to them and England. 43 Browning, English Historical Documents; Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution. 22 In addition to such foreign concerns, Charles had significant conflicts with both houses of parliament regarding finances. The House of Commons had particular concerns regarding taxes and accountability, as well as monarchical control and sovereignty. The final subject for conflict over this 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 central 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. Leading to Uniformity Before he ever stepped foot back on English soil, Charles made it very clear that he wanted political and religious freedom for the people of England. 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. 44 With this in mind, his first Declaration from Breda made such promises as the people of England had not ever heard before. 45 The idea of a public discussion of political policy was nearly unheard of in England, due to strict sedition laws and severe punishment for appearing to question Parliament. Religious freedom was not a common phrase and may not have ever been used in such a way in England before Charles doing so. His first priority was his promise to put England “into a quiet and peaceable possession…with as little blood and damage to our people as is possible.” 46 He then Browning, “Worcester House Declaration, 1660”; Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution. Browning, “Declaration of Breda, 1660”; Kenyon, “The Declaration of Breda, 4 April 1660.” 46 Browning, “Declaration of Breda, 1660”; Kenyon, “The Declaration of Breda, 4 April 1660.” 44 45 23 pardoned all subjects who expressed their loyalty to him, particularly those who may have opposed the monarchy when his father had been King. It was well established that he had the right to punish many people who had opposed his father. As such, his pardoning of them went a long way to demonstrate his sincerity to his subjects. 47 While not specifically related to religion, such a promise was sure to have relieved both English subjects and Parliament and allowed for a greater potential for trust between the King and his people. 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 of valid differences of opinion regarding religion. 48 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. It was well recognized that Charles had the right to decimate those who had executed his father and stolen his crown. The fact of his return home and the promise of 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 because it suggested that a religious difference of opinion should not be brought to the peacemakers or enforcers, regardless of any previously enacted laws which demanded such. This was particularly true given that he chose to punish everyone in Scotland who rose against his family. 48 Browning, “Declaration of Breda, 1660”; Kenyon, “The Declaration of Breda, 4 April 1660.” 47 24 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 prevalent in the reign of his father, which led to his execution, by making this promise publicly, Charles further strengthened the trust the people and Parliament had in inviting him home out of exile. All in all, the Declaration at Breda increased public confidence in Charles, indicated to everyone back home that he was the true King of England and prepared them to welcome him back. However, despite the benefits of his other promises, it was clear that religious freedom was his priority in this Declaration. With that in mind, immediately 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.” 49 This group primarily consisted of Anglican and Presbyterian ministers and philosophers. However, his efforts were not well received by those who did not feel represented at the meeting, and he quickly faced dissension from 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. Parliament also did not respond to his efforts positively, as they were not given a voice at the meeting. As such, they saw Charles’ actions as similar to his father’s efforts to circumvent Parliament in his lawmaking. Furthermore, the Anglican bishops felt that he was reducing their power both 49 Browning, “Worcester House Declaration, 1660.” 25 by consulting Anglican ministers instead of the bishops themselves and by including any Presbyterians in the conversation at all. 50 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. 51 In the Declaration of Breda, Charles was all-powerful in his authority. His language was precisely what his subjects would expect from their King. He was magnanimous enough to forgive those who have wronged him and his family. He was generous enough to allow 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. 50 51 Collins, “The Restoration Bishops and the Royal Supremacy.” Browning, “Worcester House Declaration, 1660”; Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution. 26 His use of the Royal “We” was standard for the time and a clear reminder of the Divine Rights of Kings. It was 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, was significant, as it related to the divinity of the person being referenced. There was particular significance in this since 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.” 52 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 did not acknowledge in any way that he has been in exile but instead gave the impression of power and leisure while in France. Finally, his last line about the year of his reign was a subtle reminder to everyone that following Cromwell in any way had been going against the correct line of succession and corrupting the system. In only a few months, Charles had a demonstrable loss of conviction and authority. In his Worcester House Declaration, Charles expressed frustration. Instead of instructing his subjects on the correct behavior, this declaration has a more desperate tone. 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 52 Browning, “Declaration of Breda, 1660”; Kenyon, “The Declaration of Breda, 4 April 1660.” 27 perception of asking for cooperation instead of ensuring it. In particular, the Royal “We” while present did not shine through as it did in Breda. There are several cases where Charles says “we must do…” or “we will…” in which it was unclear whether he alone was going to do it as the King or whether he was asking his subjects to follow him. The fact that anything was unclear at all was in and of itself an issue when discussing the authority of an English Monarch. Charles did not introduce himself with titles, and he did not refer to his subjects as “Our royal subjects.” He further compounded these mistakes or oversights by telling the entire country, and thereby the world, about his thwarted plans. By expressing his frustrations with Parliament and his subjects openly in this way, Charles was essentially telling them that he was unable to fulfill the promises he made at Breda. 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. Parliament did not take kindly to Charles’ effort to seemingly exclude them from his actions, nor did they appreciate the promises of religious freedom and toleration. Such a promise was unheard of in England. They wanted to maintain control of religious thought and thereby the religious practice in England. Furthermore, they wanted to remove any possibility for Charles to declare himself a Catholic or to declare Catholicism 28 the true religion in England again. Given the existing suspicions borne out of his father’s unwillingness to work with Parliament and the semi-constant national fear of another Catholic king, Parliament’s response to Charles’ efforts was swift and harsh. As a result, in 1662, Parliament passed “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.” The title gives a decent summary of the intention of the act. The impact was much more complex. The opening of the Act was 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. 53 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 churchgoers benefit society as a whole, there was 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 53 Browning, “Act of Uniformity, 1662”; Kenyon, “The Uniformity Act, 1662.” 29 many souls.” 54 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, they do not justify or provide sources for any of the information. It was likely 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 was no discussion of source or authenticity. The assurance of Parliament alone was sufficient for this act. This assurance was 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 was clear that at this time, Parliament had the greater power. That said, 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. 55 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 54 55 Browning, “Act of Uniformity, 1662”; Kenyon, “The Uniformity Act, 1662.” Browning, “Act of Uniformity, 1662”; Kenyon, “The Uniformity Act, 1662.” 30 songs, and ordination of clergymen. 56 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 demanded certain requirements of every clergyman of any kind [throughout England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, and other dominions of the Crown]. Each clergyman must read morning and evening prayers as decided by a particular group of clergymen in 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. 57 If anyone refused or somehow otherwise was not able to complete this oath as required, they “shall ipso facto be deprived of all his spiritual promotions.” 58 For every person who was able to meet these requirements and retain their positions, they were 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 discussed the punishments for anyone who either did not make the initial oath or who did 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 Browning, “Act of Uniformity, 1662”; Kenyon, “The Uniformity Act, 1662.” Browning, “Act of Uniformity, 1662”; Kenyon, “The Uniformity Act, 1662.” 58 Browning, “Act of Uniformity, 1662”; Kenyon, “The Uniformity Act, 1662.” 56 57 31 to remain in place until after 1682, exactly 20 years after the passage of the act. If someone lapsed at any point, there was a different oath, along with the connected punishment, that they would be able to make which would reinstate them. That said, 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.” 59 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 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 oversight made sense. However, with these changes, it essentially invalidated any previous training and commitments to the church and God. The major issue with such an invalidation, beyond the mere injustice of it, was 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 59 Browning, “Act of Uniformity, 1662”; Kenyon, “The Uniformity Act, 1662.” 32 are now potentially sentenced to limbo. Such a decree was 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. Finally, the Book would be specially translated to Welsh, and a special effort would be made to share its words in Wales. Again, some of these requirements and changes were reasonable in some cases. The fact that any disobedience resulted in fines and potentially imprisonment, in addition to previously passed punishments, on top of the additional expense already required by the Act to begin with, became notably unreasonable. 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. 33 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 entirely different. 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 religious turmoil and reform with a well thought out plan of attack. The only issue was that it did not work. The Great Ejection was St. Bartholomew’s Day, August 24th. Because some 2000 nonconformist ministers were ejected from their positions, this particular date in 1662 is now called Black Bartholomew’s Day. This date 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. However, farewell sermons were 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 60. Preachers and teachers who knew that they would not 60 Appleby, Black Bartholomew’s Day. 34 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 61. 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 many 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 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. Johnston, “The Patience of the Saints, the Apocalypse, and Moderate Nonconformity in Restoration England.” 61 35 One of the first farewell sermons that was 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.” He went 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” 62. 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 any 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 truly practice their faith 63. Richard Alleine discussed at length the necessity of 62 63 Watson, “A Pastors Love Expressed to a Loving People.” Appleby, Black Bartholomew’s Day. 36 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.” 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. 64 Other gave a series of sermons leading up to their final farewell in August 65. 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 66. 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…” 67. As seen in Jenkyn’s sermon, each of these ministers tended to inject a sense of urgency and crisis into their speeches and publications 68. These same ministers later took specific instances of plague or fire to be indications of such martyrdom and difficulty. See John Galpin and Daniel Bull Appleby, Black Bartholomew’s Day. 66 Johnston, “The Patience of the Saints, the Apocalypse, and Moderate Nonconformity in Restoration England.” 67 Jenkyn, “The Burning yet Un-Consumed Bush, or, The Holinesse of Places Discuss’d.” 68 Cragg, Puritanism in the Period of the Great Persecution, 1660-1688. 64 65 37 The legislation following each Popish plot dating back to Elizabeth’s reign was protective, and even some Catholics were on board with it. That said, it was particularly harsh for the Catholic ministers. There are very few surviving sermons of the Catholic dissenters, but 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 multiple Popish Plots throughout the years. 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 69. 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 an excess of output for enforcement than was necessary, thereby making it more difficult to effectively enforce the many punishments that were required by the end of the conflict as a whole. 69 Matthews and Calamy, Calamy Revised; Matthews and Walker, Walker Revised. 38 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. 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 was not fulfilling his promises. By the end, he has officially made his promise of Religious Toleration. 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.” 70 There was a record of both of these usages going back to the early- to the mid-sixteenth century. By the midseventeenth 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]” 71 to promise any kind of toleration on their behalf. By this point, this 70 71 “Toleration, n.” “Toleration, n.” 39 particular concept of toleration had been in use for over a century so it would be familiar to many. 72 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. Another issue that Charles ran into with this particular declaration was that he spends about a quarter of it discussing toleration for Papists and not just various Protestant sects. It was important to keep in mind that it was nearly unanimous 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 was unclear whether Charles made any forward progress, despite offering toleration. Charles summarily recapped many of his points in the previous declarations, 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 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.” 73 In this 72 73 “Toleration, n.” Browning, “Declaration in Favour of Toleration, 1662”; Kenyon, “Declaration of Toleration.” 40 quote, Charles was 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 was 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. 74 He follows his pointed comment with a call to his subjects to recognize that Parliament was 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.” 75 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 was trying to get his subjects attention. At the same time, he was pointing out to Parliament that they may have some power, but he was certainly not powerless, and they should be careful of what they push onto the people of England. This declaration, with all of the pointed remarks about the oppression, or lack of liberty, perpetrated by Parliament on the English people paired with Charles’ own desire to allow for debate and freedom among the people served as a turning point in England. Prior to 1662, Charles was welcomed back, publicly with open arms, and privately with caution but optimism. After this declaration at the end of 1662, Charles was no longer 74 75 Kenyon, “The Oath to the Lord Protector, 18 January 1658.” “Liberty, n.1.” 41 considered a harmless ally of Parliament, but instead someone who was problematic in the efforts to reunify England and a threat to Parliament’s power base. Uniformity Expanded In the same year as 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 of the Church of England, or which shall or may tend or be to the scandal of religion, or the Church, or the government.” 76 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. Additionally, there were punishments for any disobedience, including fines, dismissals, and imprisonment of anyone involved in such publications. 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 congregations of the followers that they had known for years. 77 76 77 Browning, “Licensing Act, 1662.” Spufford, The World of Rural Dissenters, 1520-1725; Watts, The Dissenters. 42 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. 78 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 encouraged their passage. 79 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 80 and the creation of the Commission for Public Accounts in 1667 81 in order to track all of those taxes. The Commons demanded the creation of this Commission since there was the suspicion that Charles and those in the Lords were embezzling these funds. This could have been 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. 82 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. This act restricted gatherings of five or more unless those gathering lived in the Browning, “Five Mile Act, 1665.” Harris, Restoration. 80 Kenyon, “Payment in Course, 1665”; Kenyon, “Appropriation, 1666.” 81 Kenyon, “The Commission for Public Accounts, 1667.” 82 Harris, Restoration; Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution; Browning, English Historical Documents. 78 79 43 same house. Such gatherings were not allowed to discuss religion or government in any way. If someone was suspected of participating in such a gathering, that suspicion alone was sufficient 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. 83 By this point, there were huge groups of people all across the religious spectrum, even some who selfidentified 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 religion according to their own consciences. 84 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. 85 By this point, Parliament was unwilling to acknowledge Charles’ authority beyond the bare minimum required to keep the peace. He was beholden to Parliament for every farthing that he personally spent or wanted to spend on public endeavors. His opinion received no legitimate consideration in regards to religious policies or military action. Once Parliament decided that he was a potential threat to their authority in 1662, he was treated as a mere puppet with minimal power, as demonstrated by his forced withdrawal in 1673. It is unclear whether this was Browning, “Conventicle Act, 1670.” Browning, “Declaration of Indulgence, 1672”; Kenyon, “The Declaration of Indulgence, 1672.” 85 Kenyon, “The King’s Surrender, 1673.” 83 84 44 the original intention of Parliament when Charles was Restored, but it was certainly the outcome by 1673. Parliament followed up their renewed persecution of nonconformists 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. 86 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. 87 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. 88 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. 89 Charles’ action 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 Browning, “First Test Act, 1673”; Kenyon, “First Test Act, 1673.” Browning, “Second Test Act, 1678”; Kenyon, “Second Test Act, 1678.” 88 Magee, The English Recusants; “English Recusants.” 89 Harris, Restoration; Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution. 86 87 45 distribution of nonconformists of various types, allowing more specific focus on particular regions for enforcement. 90 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. 91 Parliament later reversed the Exclusion Bill, and James did inherit the crown from Charles, but at the time, such an act was unheard of for Parliament. While such a reestablishment of the line of succession was not uncommon among kings 92, it had never before been forced by Parliament. There have been a couple of questionable cases when Parliament apparently passed over the rightful heir, but one was reverting to a previous line of succession established by a king 93 and the other was when the king had been considered mad and therefore unfit to rule. 94 In both cases, the country broke out into Civil War, with the latter case being the cause of the War of the Roses. The fact that James was passed over for his daughter and her foreign husband simply because James was openly Catholic was not a decision that Parliament should have been able to make. The fact that they made the decision and carried it out without any uprising or dissension was hugely significant in English history. Browning, “Figures Disclosed by the 1676 Census.” Browning, “Exclusion Bill, 1680”; Kenyon, “The Exclusion Bill, November 1680.” 92 Henry VIII reestablished his line of succession every time he remarried or one of his wives got pregnant again. As the King, it was his prerogative to establish his successor among his children, especially when he was passing over women (Mary and Elizabeth) who had been declared illegitimate by his divorces of their mothers. The fact that he reestablished them was more shocking for the same reason. 93 Empress Matilda, daughter of King Henry I of England, had been named her fathers successor near the end of his life. The nobility of the time did not see her as fit to rule, due to her gender and the fact that she grew up in another country. As such, they essentially ignored her father’s final decision for the line of succession and passed over Matilda for the next person in line. 94 King Henry VI of England, so called Mad King Henry, was unable to make decisions of state due to some disease of the mind. When his French wife took over the running of the country, certain nobles took control of the country and ousted Henry, putting Edward of York on the throne, thereby making him King Edward IV of England. 90 91 46 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. 95 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. This deposition has since been termed the Glorious Revolution and resulted in the establishment of Mary II, James’ Protestant daughter, and her German husband, William of Orange being seated on the throne as corulers. Their co-ruling was a condition specifically put forth by Parliament to ensure that someone from the Stuart bloodline, Mary, and someone who was definitely Protestant, William, was controlling the country. 96 In regards to the people, the Glorious Revolution resulted in the passage of the English Bill of Rights, which guaranteed certain rights to English citizens. Similar to the Magna Carta, which was chartered several hundred years earlier, the English Bill of Rights restricted monarchical control over taxation, militia, ecclesiastical councils, lawmaking, and required the calling of Parliament, among other concerns. Additionally, the act stated that James abdicated his throne, instead of being forced off of it. Finally, the act banned any Roman Catholic from sitting on the throne, as they had been found to be inconsistent and unable to properly protect and the country. 97 Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution. While it is almost definite that Mary was Protestant, since she was raised as such and married into a Protestant family, after the behavior of her predecesors, Parliament wanted to be sure that they were protected from another Catholic. 97 Editors, “English Bill of Rights”; Wrightson, English Society; “Bill of Rights | British History”; “English Bill of Rights”; “On This Day, the English Bill of Rights Makes a Powerful Statement.” 95 96 47 In short, Charles worked to reach a balance similar to that achieved by Elizabeth a century earlier and failed miserably. Not one of his stated goals were met before his death. In fact, many were further from being achieved after his efforts than they had been before his involvement, due to Parliament’s reluctance and refusal to work with him. From before he even returned to England, his stated goal was to protect toleration and reduce the suffering of his people. Since it is now clear that he had Catholic leanings for many years, some of the motivation for this was likely self-preservation. However, his contributions to the philosophical acceptance of differing religious opinion made up a large portion of the declarations that he made to his subjects throughout his reign. In the end, he failed in all of his goals and left England at least as divided as he found it. Not only was Charles unable to achieve his own goals, but he also put the proverbial final nail in monarchical sovereignty and prerogative. Parliament had been steadily gaining power and individual authority since the Magna Carta was chartered in the 13th century. Each monarch going back several generations had handed over some amount of power to Parliament, even if only social. This process was only accelerated with the ascension of a child and two women, followed by a Catholic Scot and two civil wars. Given all of that background, Charles had even less power than his father did. 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. 98 98 Harris, Restoration. 48 CONCLUSION Upon his return to the throne in 1660, King Charles II wanted to allow for more political conversation and religious toleration for his subjects. Parliament was primarily focused on stability, consistency, and uniformity in all things in the wake of the English Civil Wars. Both Charles and Parliament saw their method as the best way to improve the wealth and success of the country. Only Parliament had substantial success in their efforts. By the end of their confrontation, Parliament had tipped the balance of power in their favor. The monarchy lost much of its authority in religion, policy, taxation, and international relations. The ministers and the people of England were caught in the crossfire between Charles and Parliament in their conflicting efforts for positive reform. During the worst of the struggle, there were hundreds of people who did not have homes and thousands of others who did not have any local religious counsel or authority. By the end of the conflict, the ministers of England had demonstrated their desires for the toleration promised by Charles, the stability ensured by Parliament, and the freedom to choose. There were also those ministers and their followers who were unable or unwilling to deal with the pressure of the time and who left for the Continent or the Americas for religious freedom. With the Glorious Revolution, Parliament took control of the line of succession for the monarchy. Through the Act of Toleration of 1689, Parliament allowed for a certain degree of Protestant religious freedom while still ensuring the power and authority of the Church of England was maintained. International relations were settled somewhat in the short term by the addition of an Orange on the throne, along with a daughter of a previous king. 49 Unfortunately, while the English Bill of Rights established some resolutions, there was not true religious toleration until about 200 years later after much more discussion. Politically there was some relief after the turmoil of the Civil Wars and the Interregnum since nearly everyone could agree that they did not want another war at home. Socially, most people were satisfied with their rights and protections against Catholicism. Those who were not happy left England for the Continent or to the American Colonies. The result was not true toleration, but those who remained in England were sufficiently tolerated until true toleration could be established. Ultimately, the national controversy over religion following the Restoration led to lasting peace and new resolutions of longtime issues. Charles’ reign was defined by the conversation about toleration and what that would mean realistically. The powers of the Monarchy, Parliament, and the Church of England were tested and balanced against international concerns and the desires of the people, as represented by ministers around England. 50 Bibliography Alleine, Richard. The Godly Mans Portion and Sanctuary Opened, in Two Sermons, Preached August 17. 1662. London, 1662. Allen, William. “A Declaration of the Sentence and Deposition of Elizabeth, 1588.” In Early Modern Catholicism: An Anthology of Primary Sources, edited by Robert S. Miola, 77–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Anon. The History of Popish-Sham-Plots from the Reign of Queen Elizabeth to This Present Time. London, 1682. Appleby, David J. Black Bartholomew’s Day: Preaching, Polemic and Restoration Nonconformity. Politics Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2007. Barron, Denise. “Role of Anti-Catholicism in England in the 1670s,” n.d. http://www.moyak.com/papers/popish-plot-england.html. Baskerville, S. K. “Puritans, Revisionists, and the English Revolution.” Huntington Library Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1998): 151–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/3817796. Baxter, Richard. “The English Nonconformity: As under King Charles II. and King James II. Truly Stated and Argued,” 1662. Beaver, Dan. “Conscience and Context: The Popish Plot and the Politics of Ritual, 16781682.” The Historical Journal 34, no. 2 (June 1, 1991): 297–327. “Bible Gateway Passage: Revelation 1 - King James Version.” Bible Gateway. Accessed March 18, 2019. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=KJV. “Bill of Rights | British History.” In Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-British-history. Bliss, Robert. “English Politics and the Origins of the First Empire, 1625-1689.” Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1983. http://search.proquest.com/docview/303186555/?pq-origsite=primo. Browning, Andrew, ed. “7 Car. II, Cap. 2: An Act for Restraining Nonconformists from Inhabiting in Corporations.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:382–84. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “12 Car. II, Cap. 14: An Act for a Perpetual Anniversary Thanksgiving on the Nine and Twentieth Day of May.” In English Historical Documents: 16601714, Reprint., VI:61–62. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. 51 ———, ed. “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: 16601714, Reprint., VI:377–82. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “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, Reprint., VI:67–69. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “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 English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:174–75. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “22 Car. 11, Cap. 1: An Act to Prevent and Suppress Seditious Conventicles.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:384– 86. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “25 Car. II, Cap. 2: An Act for Preventing Dangers Which May Happen from Popish Recusants.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:389–91. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “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, Reprint., VI:391– 94. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “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, Reprint., VI:58–59. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “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: 16601714, Reprint., VI:113–14. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “Declaration of Breda, 1660.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:57–58. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. English Historical Documents: 1660-1714. Reprint. Vol. VI. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. 52 ———, ed. “His Majesty’s Declaration to All His Loving Subjects.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:371–74. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “His Majesty’s Declaration to All His Loving Subjects.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:387–88. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “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, Reprint., VI:365–70. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “Order of the Lords and Commons for the Exhumation of Oliver Cromwell, 1660.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:62. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. ———, ed. “The Number of Freeholders in England, Conformists, Nonconformists and Papists.” In English Historical Documents: 1660-1714, Reprint., VI:413–16. English Historical Documents. New York, NY: Routledge, 1966. Bucholz, Robert, and Newton Key. “Chapter Nine: Restoration and Revolution, 16601689.” In Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History, 2nd ed., 277– 314. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. ———. Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History. 2 edition. WileyBlackwell, 2013. C., G., and Corn Danckertsz. “Popish Plots and Treasons from the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. / Illustrated with Emblems and Explain’d in Verse. ; First Are Describ’d the Cursed Plots They Laid. And on the Side Their Wretched Ends Display’d.,” 1697 1676. Clark, Henry William. History of English Nonconformity from Wiclif to the Close of the Nineteenth Century,. London :, 1911. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b74596. Clarke, Samuel. The Lives of Sundry Eminent Persons in This Later Age: In Two Part, I. Of Divines ; II. Of Nobility and Gentry of Both Sexes. Printed for Thomas Simmons, 1683. Collins, Jeffrey R. “The Restoration Bishops and the Royal Supremacy.” Church History 68, no. 3 (1999): 549–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3170038. Cragg, Gerald R. Puritanism in the Period of the Great Persecution, 1660-1688. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1957. https://www.questia.com/library/401264/puritanism-in-the-period-of-the-greatpersecution. 53 Dillon, Anne, and Arthur Marotti F. “Religious Ideology and Cultural Fantasy: Catholic and Anti-Catholic Discourses in Early Modern England.” History 91, no. 303 (2006): 456–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-229X.2006.373_31.x. Dolan, Frances E. “The Subordinate('s) Plot: Petty Treason and the Forms of Domestic Rebellion.” Shakespeare Quarterly 43, no. 3 (1992): 317–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/2870531. Editors, History com. “English Bill of Rights.” HISTORY. Accessed April 8, 2019. https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/english-bill-of-rights. Elizabeth I. “The Last Speech and Thanks of Queen Elizabeth of Ever Blessed Memory, to Her Last Parliament, after Her Delivery from the Popish Plots, &c.,” 1679. Emmons, Julia. “The Politics of Factions in the Early Restoration Court of Charles II, 1660-1667.” Dissertation, Emory University, 1984. http://search.proquest.com/docview/303321709/?pq-origsite=primo. “English Bill of Rights.” In New World Encyclopedia, n.d. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/English_Bill_of_Rights. “English Recusants.” Catholic Encylopedia, n.d. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677a.htm. Flantzer, Susan. “When the Monarch Dies: Proclamation of The New Monarch.” Unofficial Royalty (blog), April 6, 2017. http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/whenthe-monarch-dies-proclamation-of-the-new-monarch/. Guilfoyle, James. “The Political Economy of England and Ireland in the Age of Mercantilism, 1660–1760.” Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2009. http://search.proquest.com/docview/305050635/?pq-origsite=primo. Harris, Tim. Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660-1685. London: Penguin Books, 2005. Hintermaier, John. “Power, Piety, and Polemic in the British Restorations, 1660–1670.” Dissertation, Princeton University, 2004. http://search.proquest.com/docview/305149927/?pq-origsite=primo. Jenkyn, William. “The Burning yet Un-Consumed Bush, or, The Holinesse of Places Discuss’d,” 1662. Johnston, Warren. “The Patience of the Saints, the Apocalypse, and Moderate Nonconformity in Restoration England.” Canadian Journal of History 38, no. 3 (December 2003): 505. 54 Jones, R. Tudur, Arthur Long, and Rosemary Moore, eds. “Calamy’s Sufferers.” In Protestant Nonconformist Texts Volume 1: 1550 - 1700, 251–55. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. ———, eds. “Joseph Alleine: Be Resolute!” In Protestant Nonconformist Texts Volume 1: 1550 - 1700, 250. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. ———, eds. “Persecution and Toleration.” In Protestant Nonconformist Texts Volume 1: 1550 - 1700, 256–58. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. ———, eds. Protestant Nonconformist Texts Volume 1: 1550 - 1700. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. ———, eds. “Robert Collins: Prepare for Suffering.” In Protestant Nonconformist Texts Volume 1: 1550 - 1700, 248–50. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. ———, eds. “The Ejected Ministers Bid Farewell, 1662.” In Protestant Nonconformist Texts Volume 1: 1550 - 1700, 235–43. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Kennedy, Allan. Governing Gaeldom: The Scottish Highlands and the Restoration State, 1660-1688. Vol. 66. Northern World. Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2014. Kenyon, J. P., ed. “12 Car. II, c. I2: An Act for Confirmation of Judicial Proceedings, 1660.” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 344–47. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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., 339–44. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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., 349. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “13 Car. II c. 12: An Act for Explanation of a Clause Contained in an Act of Parliament Made in the Seventeenth Year of the Late King Charles...Concerning Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical, 1661.” In The Stuart Constitution 16031688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 350–51. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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., 353–56. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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 55 The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 364–66. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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., 366. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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., 366–70. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “22 Car. 11, Cap. 1: An Act to Prevent and Suppress Seditious Conventicles (The Conventicles Act, 1670).” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 356–59. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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., 385–86. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “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, 1678.” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 386–87. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “His Majesty’s Declaration to All His Loving Subjects [15 March 1672].” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 382–83. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “His Majesty’s Declaration to All His Loving Subjects, 26 December 1662.” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 379–82. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “The Declaration of Breda, 4 April 1660.” In The Stuart Constitution 16031688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 331–32. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “The Exclusion Bill, November 1680.” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 387–89. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. “The King’s Surrender, 1673.” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 383–84. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. 56 ———, ed. “The Oath to the Lord Protector, 18 January 1658.” In The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary, 2nd edition., 330–31. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. ———, ed. The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Documents and Commentary. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1986. Knight, Kevin. “Asceticism.” Catholic Encylopedia, 2012. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767c.htm. “Liberty, n.1.” In OED Online. Oxford University Press, n.d. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/107898. Loach, Jennifer. “The Function of Ceremonial in the Reign of Henry VIII.” Past & Present 142, no. 1 (February 1, 1994): 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/past/142.1.43. Luther, Martin. “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.” Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, May 2009, 1. Magee, Brian. The English Recusants: A Study of the Post-Reformation Catholic Survival and the Operation of the Recusancy Laws. London: Burns, Oates, 1938. http://archive.org/details/MN5014ucmf_0. Matthews, A. G., and Edmund Calamy. Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy’s Account of the Ministers and Others Ejected and Silenced, 1660-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Matthews, A. G., and John Walker. Walker Revised: Being a Revision of John Walker’s Sufferings of the Clergy during the Grand Rebellion, 1642-60. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Middleton, John. “Charles I.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 168–69. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. ———. “Charles II.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 169–70. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. ———. “Edward VI.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 261–62. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. ———. “Elizabeth I.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 275–77. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. ———. “Henry VIII.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 393–95. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. 57 ———. “James I.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 454–55. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. ———. “Mary I.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 583. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. ———. “William and Mary.” In World Monarchies and Dynasties, 1010–12. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. ———. World Monarchies and Dynasties. Armonk, United States: Routledge, 2004. Miller, John. Cities Divided: Politics and Religion in English Provincial Towns, 16601722. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Mullett, Charles F. “Toleration and Persecution in England, 1660-89.” Church History 18, no. 1 (1949): 18–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/3161055. Newcombe, David G. Henry VIII and the English Reformation. London, UK: Routledge, 1995. Nolan, Cathal J. “England.” In Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations. ABC-CLIO, 2002. “On This Day, the English Bill of Rights Makes a Powerful Statement.” National Constitution Center, n.d. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-theenglish-bill-of-rights-makes-a-powerful-statement. Pryce, Huw, John Watts, and John Lovett Watts. “Identity and Morality: Power and Politics During the Wars of the Roses.” In Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press USA, 2007. Richey, Russell E. “The Origins of British Radicalism: The Changing Rationale for Dissent.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 7, no. 2 (1973): 179–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/3031653. Ryrie, Alec. The Gospel and Henry VIII : Evangelicals in the Early English Reformation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Scott, Jonathan. England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political Instability in European Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=n labk&AN=73917. Simon, Walter G. “Comprehension in the Age of Charles II.” Church History 31, no. 4 (1962): 440–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3162746. 58 Southcombe, George editor, Grant Tapsell, and Clive Holmes. Revolutionary England, c.1630-c.1660: Essays for Clive Holmes. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2017. Spalding, James C. “The Demise of English Presbyterianism: 1660-1760.” Church History 28, no. 1 (1959): 63–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3161687. Spufford, Margaret, ed. The World of Rural Dissenters, 1520-1725. First Edition edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Spurr, John. “The Church of England, Comprehension and the Toleration Act of 1689.” The English Historical Review 104, no. 413 (1989): 927–46. Strype, John, ed. Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion, and the Reformation of It, and the Emergences of the Church of England, Under King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary I : With Large Appendixes Containing Original Papers, Records Etc. Burlington, Ont: Tanner Ritchie Publishing, 2008. “Toleration, n.” In OED Online. Oxford University Press, n.d. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/202988. Watson, Thomas. “A Pastors Love Expressed to a Loving People,” August 17, 1662. Watts, Michael. The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Wrightson, Keith. English Society: 1580-1680. Rutgers University Press, 2003.