Significance of the Toleration Act
Religious intolerance was normal practice throughout the Middle Ages,
the Reformation bringing with it much persecution. Christian
Anti-Semitism fuelled the religious insecurity prevalent in Europe
but by the end of the sixteenth century Poland, the Dutch Republic and
France had reached a state of ‘tolerance’, being in contrast to the
religious intolerance still present in England at this time. The
passing of the Toleration Act in 1689 appears to have been a close
call, coming as it did during a particularly unstable period, making
its conception all the more surprising. However, the practical
achievement of the Act was remarkable, it being the first time in
English history that dissenters such as Quakers, Presbyterians,
Independents and Baptists were recognised by law and given a right to
free worship. The significance of the Act must be judged by both its
sort and long term effects and must be assessed both socially and
politically but what is perhaps of major significance is that it
constituted both a turning point and a catalyst for change at a time
when the Anglican Church was coming under re-evaluation.
The Toleration Act reduced the Church of England from the national to
merely the established church of England.[1] It could be argued that
in many ways this was simply a legal and political recognition of what
had prevailed for forty years but this does not diminish its
significance. The simple act of acknowledging dissenters caused
Anglicans to loose power and created political, ideol...
... middle of paper ...
... to compete with other religious groups. A remarkable
development of this was the rise of devotional groups, with the most
significant probably being S.P.C.K (Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge) founded in 1699, moving the church, in direct response to
the changes that it faced, into a far more consciously evangelic era.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Spurr. The Restoration Church Of England 1646-1689 pg 104
[2] Tyacke. The legalizing of Dissent, 1571-1719 in From Persecution
to Toleration ed.Grell pg.44
[3] Gregory. The eighteenth century Reformation: the pastoral task of
Anglican Clergy after 1689 in The Church of England c.1689-c.1833 ed.
J,Walsh pg.69.
[4] G.V Bennett Conflict in the church in Britain after the glorious
Revolution ed.Holmes pg.155
The Church of England was not a good religion during the sixteenth century, the puritans want to practice their own religion but the Church of England would not allow them. People didn’t want to obey the churches authority anymore. The Puritans it particular did not want to follow the Church of England. Over time, “the church of England began to crack down on those who refused to bow to their authority” (www3.gettysburg.edu) this caused the Puritans to leave England. The puritans left England and went on a dangerous journey to be free from the church. It was so bad that, “it got to the point where the puritans decided to face the dangerous journey to the New World rather than be persecuted for their religion” (www3.gettysburg.edu) these people would rather put their lives and families in danger than to be put down by the Church of England. There were ranks inside the church and women were at the bottom.
Among the first English settlers were the pilgrims, a group of around 100 people who fled England in 1608 for Holland due to religious persecution (Henkin and McLennan, 54), but found it to be too tolerable (Lecture), and were concerned about the influence of the Dutch on their children (Henkin and McLennan, 54). With hopes of a “purer” society (Lecture, 9/21/16), they decided to emigrate to the New World, eventually landing at Plymouth Harbor. The Puritans emigrated because of concerns that “the English reformation had not fully purged itself of Catholic heresy,” (Henkin and McLennan,
In The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village, renowned scholar Eamonn Duffy investigates the English Reformation. Duffy pears through the eyes of the priest of a small, remote village in Southwestern England. Using Sir Christopher Trichay’s records of the parish, Duffy illustrates an image of Reformation opposite of what is predominantly assumed. Duffy argues the transformation that took place between 1530 and 1570, through the transition of four monarchs, was much more gradual that many interpret. Even though state mandate religious change affected the community of Morebath, the change did not ensue the violence that is often construed with the Reformation. Sir Christopher Trichay’s leadership and his portrayal of community life, the development and removal of St. Sidwell, and the participation in the church through stores develop Duffy’s argument of appeasement rather than violence during the English Reformation.
In 1632 Maryland officially became a proprietary colony which meant that an individual was awarded and possesed governmental control of the land. The authority was given to Cecilius Calvert who happen to be a Catholic and was the son of King Charles I. As his father was the first Baron Baltimore he became the second Baron Baltimore. He did not exclude Protestants from Maryland, restrict them in the exercise of their religion, nor et up a Roman Catholic establishment (Johnson, 1876). “The charter gave him ... “full, free, and absolute power,” including control of trade and the right to initiate all legislation, with an elected assembly confined to approving or disapproving his proposals” (Foner, 2016, p. 63). Calvert's image of Maryland was
the aftermath of the Protestant reformation. In England, after the establishment of the separate Anglican church of England there were many protestant groups left in England still in conflict. These groups all tried to push and pull parliament in their favor -- which ultimately made it so that nothing could be done. These conflicts even came to the point of bloody civil wars and suffering on both sides of the fighting. Parliament ultimately decided to stop these wars by creating religious Act of Toleration (1689) for the non-conformist protestants.
The first argument that the author makes against the Stamp Act is that laws passed by Parliament shouldn’t apply to the colonies because they have no representation in the British government. He then declares that therefore, New England will only accept the jurisdiction of the royal governors assigned to offices in America. The author also argues that Parliament is robbing the King of his “sole right to govern” the colonies by passing such unfair acts, and that the King is no better than Parliament if he allows the injustice to continue.
The English Civil war was partially a religious conflict, which brought Church and State against Parliament. Under the reign of James I, England saw the rise in Protestants dissenters. Groups like Barrowists, Puritans, Fifth Monarchists, Quakers, and many more demanded for more religious reform. They felt that the Church of England’s liturgy was too Catholic for a Protestant church. James VI and I accepted the more moderated Puritans and other dissenters, and he was able to keep his kingdom in peace. However, his son Charles I did not believe that kings were answerable to Parliament, but to God. In fact, he ruled without Parliament for many years. He trusted the running of the Church of England to William Laud, who believed that the Church had already gone through too many reforms. Laud went wrong when he tried to make church services more about doctrine and sacraments, and sought to make freewill the official doctrine of the Church. He did not stop there. He ordered that alters should be re-sited from the central places in churches to the east end of churches across the country. This essay will discuss Laud’s Arminian doctrines and his misjudgement of England’s religious mood, which led to his downfall and to the civil war.
There was undoubtedly an increase in extreme Protestant views throughout Elizabeth’s reign, an area of particular concern was the Puritan beliefs of some of her senior advisors such as the Earl of Leicester. There were also some of those from within the Elizabethan Church and within Elizabeth’s government whose opposition to the Religious Settlement was influential to an extent, particularly during the 1570s, but all of whom received a severe punishment, and consequently never gained enough support to become a substantial threat to the Monarchy. This view has been illustrated
In the 1640s, England was at civil war over religion. This conflict was reflected in the Maryland colony. In 1645, Richard Ingle, a Protestant, led a rebellion now known as the Ingle’s rebellion. The Protestants in this colony felt threatened by the presence of the Catholics and sought government power. The governor, Leonard Calvert, fled Maryland in fear of his life, allowing Ingle to assume government power. Ingle used his power to rob Catholic colonists of their wealth and sent two Jesuit priests to England in chains. After two years, Leonard returned and seized his power back. In 1649, Leonard passed away and William Stone took his place as governor, making him the first Protestant governor of Maryland. Governor Stone passed the “Act of Toleration” in 1649. This wa the first bill of its kind in the colonies and a first attempt at the separation of church and state, an ideology that stays with our country today. While this act was passed, religion still continued to personally divide the colonists. In 1649, Governor Stone also invited Puritans to settle in Maryland. After a few years of political struggle, the Puritans took control of the government, passing religiously intolerant legislation. Later, in 1689, the Maryland Revolution took place, incited by a Protestant real group lead by a man named John Coode. The King and Queen of England, William and Mary, put Maryland under royal control.
In 16TH AND 17TH century, Puritans were a group of people “dissidents”. The English Reformed Protestants were in verge to “purify”, the Church of England from
The Coercive or Intolerable Acts (1774) were the American Patriots' term for a series of punitive laws which were passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea party. This act was known more widely as Intolerable Acts by American. “ It’s object was to provide a civil government for the French-speaking Roman Catholic inhabitants Canada and the Illinois country.” (Brinkley p.125). It was passed to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in throwing a large tea shipment into Boston harbor. From what I learned from this chapter, I agree with the Patriots, because they were being taxed without any say or representation in the British government, and also British personnel were causing violence, riots, and death (Boston
What is and what was the stamp act? The stamp act is a tax. This tax was imposed on all American colonists and also required them to pay a tax on every single piece of printed paper they used. The money collected by it ( The Stamp Act ) was told to be used to pay the cost of defending and protecting the American frontier. ( 10,000 troops were to be stationed on the America frontier for this purpose). But the cost was relatively small.
Internet a bad name. There is also information on the Net that could be harmful
Of all of these events, the event that has the strongest influence on religion throughout British history is the Protestant Reformation, which occurred between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period. This event drastically changed the culture and the view of religion in society. The protestant reformation forever transformed religion in Europe.
Pettegree, Andrew. "The English Reformation." BBC History. BBC, 17 Feb 2011. Web. 1 Oct 2013.