Many debates have been going on since the 17thcentury about whether or no the English Revolution had increased religious toleration. The debate centers around whether or not these Parliamentary Acts reflect the current ideas of religious freedom and individual liberty or were merely a result of paranoia about Catholicism. The writer has found that although ideas of religious freedom and human rights during this period were not widespread, they were not unknown. There were also individuals who espoused many of these concepts. Many historians believe that the process was one of evolution, whereby progress was made from A to B. However, this is not true. The British government, despite not having the intended goal, helped to cultivate the idea of religious freedom, which changed the perceptions about religious tolerance. This argument is framed by tensions that existed between Catholics, Protestants, the English crown, which are what led to these ideas. This tension began to emerge during Henry VIII’s reign. It then grew during Elizabeth and James’ rule, before finally exploding in a Civil War. The Puritan Revival, or the time of the English religious debate, did not begin until this period.
The relationship between England and Catholicism has been turbulent ever since Henry VIII broke with Rome in 1530. The majority of English people, however, chose to conform and avoid the wrath the law. Over time, many laws were enacted to dissuade Catholics from practicing the religion. By late 16th-century, most English citizens were Protestants. During that time, everyone was required to be a member of a certain religious group. Elizabeth I was the first to focus on uniformity in religion. Mary Tudor – Elizabeth’s younger sister – was a fanatic religious leader who was brutally violent and cruel because of her fanatical religious beliefs. Mary Tudor was responsible for the burning of nearly 300 men and women for having views that were contrary to Orthodox Catholicism.
Elizabeth was determined to reestablish Protestant control in England after Mary’s death. In the early 1550s, she enacted numerous laws to accomplish this. Elizabethan Religious Settlement was the most famous of the laws that reestablished Protestantism after Mary, her strict Catholic sister. Act of Supremacy of 1559) and Act of Uniformity comprised this settlement. The Act of Supremacy restored the monarchy as head of the Church, whereas the Act of Uniformity of 2015 set up the worship order as established in 1552’s second Book of Common Prayer.
Elizabeth and those who supported her were happy with the moderate changes made by the Acts. However, a growing number of Puritans, dissenters, believed the Church of England needed to eliminate all traces of Catholicism. Puritans led by Thomas Cartwright were at odds with the Queen. After Edmund Grindel’s dismissal as Archbishop Canterbury in 1578 due to her disagreement with his views, London saw a rise in the number of separatist churches. These radical sects were not a result of a desire to split from the Church of England, but rather a Puritan movement for reform. However, due to an increase in Puritan writings in 1593, the Conventicle Act passed. This act made anyone who refused or participated in puritan conventicle punishable by exile.
Though the Protestant sects that emerged during Elizabeth I’s reign were rebuffed by the Stuart King Charles I in her final years, they would ultimately destroy his monarchy. The Puritans blamed King James I for the widening of the rift that existed between the monarchy & the Puritans. The first Armenian Church was established in London, England in 1611 and offshoots were formed in the 1620s. James was a Protestant, but he sparked Protestant suspicions when he married Charles to Henrietta Maria (a French Catholic) and suspended recusancy laws. Laud failed in his attempt to suppress Puritanism, leading Protestants to retaliate, culminating in the English Civil War.
In the Puritan Revival, which spanned the 1640s-1660s, there were many debates on religious acceptance. In this era, the focus was no longer on appeasing all groups in the Church of England but instead allowing them to exist independently. The rise of Separatist groups in 1644 brought the issue to the forefront.
John Coffey, an historian, believed that tolerance had two main elements: disapproval of others and restraint. Both components were crucial because religion is a very serious matter and everyone has an opinion on the religious beliefs of others. Accepting this wrong stance is also important. Tolerance was not just a simple concept. It had many contexts. Polemical tolerance is the main context that we explore. Tolerance by polemical means is to argue with the intention of changing someone’s mind. Coffey says, “When confronted with a set of beliefs or practices that they did not approve of, early modern …. believers felt they had an obligation to attack false religions through arguments.”
In 1668 anonymously, a writer addressed a member to Parliament and requested “liberty conscience” or tolerance of religion. A writer identified only as J.C. replied harshly two years later to this letter. The first writer made the case for religious toleration by comparing England and other Christian and Jewish nations. His argument compared England to the Kingdom described in the Bible. He said that Israel had many different religions and that some were “so far away from…Mosaic Law that it was death to them to follow it.” He also claimed that England and Israel had similar characteristics, including a monarchy, sensible rulers and God’s establishment. The author even said there were Jewish sects who held similar beliefs to English Protestants. However, the Jews could still live in harmony and God never warned the magistrates about the dangers of pluralism. In 1668, this writer was still hostile to Catholicism. Throughout the article, he made it clear that he disdained “popery”.
The second pamphlet was written by the author as a response to the first letter. The author of the first letter was attacked in the opening section. He implied that the writer of the previous message was not Church of England. The remainder of his introduction was spent insulting the author for the poor way he had argued his case. J.C. then went on to try to dismantle his opponent’s argument after insulting the first author. In response to the previously mentioned argument regarding the comparison to the Kingdom of Israel, J.C., states that “Because he makes it not to appear, that they to whom Liberty was so granted (if any was) were men…[so dangerous as our]…Dissenters…the case is not the same…”[ He also argued that because Christ commanded unity from his subjects that accepting multiple religions was, more than anything, “destructive to Christianity”. He thought that the division promoted by the many different sects did not serve the individual souls of people or the greater good.
Many debates took place before and after 1689’s Act of Toleration. The Act of Toleration was the one responsible for legal tolerance towards dissenting groups. It is stated in the act that the act was passed to exempt Protestant subjects of their Majesties who were dissenting against the Church of England.
For years, historians have debated the issue of religious tolerance. As a result, popular ideas have developed. Whig historians, for example, believe that tolerance and intolerance were a straight line. Revisionists are historians that believe the reason for religious tolerance was the fear of Catholicism in England reestablishing itself. Some historians have opinions that are somewhere in between.
John Coffey describes the main texts and beliefs that make up what he calls, “the Whig story of tolerance”. Whig history viewed the Act of Toleration as a major achievement for liberalism. The Puritan revolution and Oliver Cromwell’s work were seen as the authors of a blueprint that changed the status-quo. Although they were aware of the negative aspects still present, they believed that this triumph was a result of, to quote S.R. Gardiner described this as “the beginnings of democratic, economic individualism, and modern English prose”. Jordan’s The Development of Religious Tolerance, England 1558-1660.
Revisionists are historians who, as mentioned previously, have reacted against the Whigs. Revisionists are more critical of religious intolerance than the Whigs. They focused their attention on the hostility and tensions between Protestant groups and the omnipresent hatred against Catholicism. The historians behind this movement included John Morrill and Conrad Russell. Russell wrote “The Causes of the English Civil War”, while John Laursen and Cary Nederman wrote “Beyond the Persecuting Society. Religious Toleration before the Enlightenment”.
Alexandra Walsham, John Coffey and other experts are the most knowledgeable on the subject. Walsham authored the book “Charitable hate: Tolerance an Intolerance England 150-1700” whereas Coffey published “Persecution in Protestant England 1658-1689”. Both books have some leanings towards both schools, but neither book is a perfect fit. Coffey is a “post-revisionist”, claiming to be a proponent of this viewpoint. He acknowledges that anti-Catholic paranoia played a part in this, but also admits there had been a societal advance towards greater tolerance as early as the 17th century.
Walsham’s approach is very different. She believes that intolerance and tolerance are closely related. She claims that only a small minority believed in religious liberty and that those who fought for it did so out of fear that they would create martyrs or strengthen the cause against which they were fighting. She emphasizes the power and importance of inclusiveness in national churches, stating “Even by the end of [the 17th century] a very small minority supported a disestablishment policy”. However, there are times when radical changes occur not because a hegemonic group deems them morally essential, but for their own benefit. She is right that the Toleration Act of 1689 didn’t bring down the Church of England, but it did allow for different Protestant sects. It did not change the status-quo in one go, but it was a significant shift.
These two historical viewpoints have dominated the conversation regarding religious tolerance in England of the 17th-century. These two viewpoints may initially appear to be incompatible. However, by the time of this period greater tolerance had been achieved. Through this, people began to understand the importance of allowing people to worship in a way that was previously not allowed under English Law. Although there were many factors that led to this decision, most of which weren’t noble or innovative, the result was freedoms unprecedented in English law.
