This book analyzed the political, economic, and social perspectives of the movement toward the Glorious Revolution and religious toleration. By stressing the role of the repealers, Scott Sowerby placed the movement toward toleration outside the religious perspective and stressed the civic realm of rights. The repealers wanted to repeal penal laws and the test acts so they voted for pro-repeal candidates to Parliament. Moreover, between November 1687 and September 1688, James conducted a series of purges in an attempt to control who was elected to a parliament that in the end never met.
Sowerby spends a great deal of time on elections and the role James indirectly played in them. The fact of the matter was that James wanted to repeal the penal laws and the test acts so he could build a strong Catholic base.
Indeed, church polity was an important part of the debate. Repealers did not want a polity based on bishops; they looked back to early Christianity for a model for the government of their churches. Moreover, the Nonconformist churchmen would have to agree that the English Reformation was completed to obtain liberty of conscience in religious matters. Along those lines, the Anglican bishop Edward Stillingfleet proposed accommodation of Protestant dissenters in an address to Parliament.
Although the repealers were self-centered and wanted only laws that benefited them, Sowerby compares them to the philosophes of the Enlightenment. The problem was that established churches remained in England, France, and other parts of the European Continent, including Prussia and Russia after the Enlightenment. He used Safavid Iran and the Ottoman Turks as examples of an established religion that tolerated other religions. However, anyone who was not Muslim in the region paid a special tax and became second class citizens.
In England, James went out of his way to accommodate Nonconformists because he believed it would help the position of Catholics. Along these lines, the Declaration of Indulgences put forth first by Charles II and then by James II were discussed.
Most troublesome was the Declaration of Indulgence of 1687 because James ordered the clergy to read it in all the churches. The Declaration was read in only six of ninety-seven churches within the walls of London. Many people were against the Declaration because it arrogated to the king a power they believed belonged to Parliament. In fact, seven Anglican bishops refused to read the Declaration because they argued that it endorsed the power of the king to dispense with laws he disliked. James reacted by ordering that the bishops be confined in the Tower of London. In the meantime, James pressured Nonconformists to send addresses of thanks to show their support for his Declaration.
By design Sowerby's approach to the movement toward toleration left out the intellectual component of the movement. However, by leaving out the theological debate between 1660 and 1685 among Conformists and Nonconformists, he ignores an important part of the debate that led to toleration. Churchmen carried on a complex debate that led to a better understanding of liberty of conscience in religious matters. Without the religious debate, there would not have been toleration. The theological debate prepared the minds of many churchmen for the changes in the religious climate in the 1680s that led to their acceptance of toleration.
In addition, Sowerby played down the fear many Nonconformists had regarding Catholicism. James worked for toleration because he wanted religious freedom for Catholics. He pushed for change that would benefit Catholics while Anglicans pushed for stability under an established Church of England.
Sowerby compared James II to Henry of Navarre (Henry IV) of France who was a Huguenot and became Catholic so he could be king. However, James was already Catholic and he fully intended to remain Catholic. He intended to assure that his Catholic son would follow him as the King of England.
However, the English decided against him. The Glorious Revolution not only made the Anglican Church the established church, it also deposed James. England became a constitutional monarchy that made monarchs work with Parliament. Beginning with William and Mary, future monarchs had to sign a Bill of Rights. The Toleration Act that followed gave toleration but it was not, as Sowerby noted, the religious pluralism established much later in the American Revolution.
It is obvious that a great deal of research in the both primary and secondary forces contributed to this comprehensive analysis of an important movement in England that led to not only religious toleration but also to a constitutional monarchy. The book broadens the perspective of the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Toleration Act by stressing political, social, and economic attributes that influenced Conformists and Nonconformists as well as Catholics. Sowerby made some thoughtful points throughout the book. He commented in a poignant way on the very heart of the issues that subsequently led to a changed political, economic, and social environment in England.
