1688 Text Discussion

Respond to the following sets of questions (each with a 8 sentence, minimum, answer) below:

**James’ Issuance of Toleration, Bill of Rights and Toleration Act**

-How do these legal decisions reflect attempts to solve questions of sovereignty, role of law, and use of religion that mounted during Charles II’s rule? In what ways do these represent a revolution in English politics? In what ways do they mark continuity?

-Compared with James’ issuance of toleration, how does the Toleration Act reflect constitutional issues and religious politics in England?

 

**Historical views of James II, William III, and the Glorious Revolution**

-How do these views differ? How do they understand “the Glorious Revolution” as an event in English history? Why did James fall and William succeed?

27 thoughts on “1688 Text Discussion”

  1. The person that wrote this text is T.B Macaulay, in 1648 talking about James II’s coming to power. Macaulay talks about how James’ was not enthused to tolerate other religions, but that he more so wanted the fighting to stop. James’ did not agree with people getting “able” men being executed for just being Catholic. However, later in the document it is revealed that James does not adhere to this but rather makes his own judgement call in the moment. This reflects how the King or Queen at the time act as the absolute sovereign and is more or less allowed to do whatever they decide. It is under the reign of Charles’ II that he tried to persuade Parliament to be more tolerate of other religions, this was ultimately strict down by the body of Parliament. So, by James now coming to power and saying he wants toleration, not enforcing it and nothing ever comes of it, is similar to what happened in Charles’ reign, where people were still not tolerant.
    In the second text it is stated that James’ sympathized many times with the victims of persecution, yet for political reasons he was not able to speak out against it. James’ was still seeking for the unity or at least cooperation between Tories and non-Tories. James’ conversion to toleration, even if it was insincere as some believed, is reflected in Charles’ reign since he was an advocate of toleration. As for the sovereignty aspect of this passage, it depicts that James’ was unwilling to place the Pope back in power, which would leave the king or queen as the highest ruling power. Again, this highlights how the King should have the last word. It the text James is even referred to as “arrogant” when it came to Rome, namely the Pope and governing powers outside the crown.
    In the third text, “The First Modern Revolution”, talks about how the people around James, namely his courtier was no more accepting of religious toleration. This highlights the difficulty in trying to remain tolerate in government when the people around you are intolerant and trying in influence other with their beliefs. For example, James’ lord chancellor, of Scotland was very admit that there would be no further spread of Protestantism. This work calls James out for continuing to speak ill of religious minorities even during a time of supposedly “toleration”. James as a Catholic himself, was very firm in keeping his faith a part of English Society and this is something that is reaffirmed when he sees what Louis XIV was doing in his home country of France. Louis XIV has converting the masses in Catholics, and this could prove as a great example in James’ eye of what people should be doing in England. However, people eventually got fed up with James’ catholic ideas and therefore decided to overthrow him in what is known as the Glorious Revolution. The people wanted James’s to be removed from power and to be replaced with his daughter, Mary and her husband William who were devote Protestants. Supporters of Prostatism and toleration would see the Glorious revolution as a positive thing. While Catholics, people in France, and people would did not want toleration would think of the Glorious Revolution as a negative. They would want James’ to remain in power. It was after being convinced by Parliament over sometime that James’ finally was removed from power and William and Mary were now given power with the Declaration of Rights. James’ ended up fleeing to France to be in the realm of Louis XIV, a fellow Catholic. James’ ultimately fell, while William took to power because, James’ even though he promised toleration was not accepting of other religions and the people of England feared having a Catholic like him in power.

  2. James’ Issuance of Toleration attempted to solve the question of sovereignty as during Charles II’s rule the answer tended to be a back and forth between monarch and Parliament and sometimes even both. Through exercising his ecclesiastical powers in a way that went against the grain of the desires of the English public, he attempted to indirectly establish himself as sovereign, going over the heads of Parliament and established laws to do so. A precedent that had not been used since before the Civil War when Kings had more power. This issuance marks a continitty in English politics as since the days of Henry VIII, the religion of the King influences however tolerant or intolerant the religious policy became. Since James no longer has the power that monarch back in Queen Mary’s day did, he must resort to toleration for everyone in order to achieve freedom for Catholics instead of forcibly converting the entire nation. However The Bill of Rights represents a revolution in English politics as Parliament continues to limit the monarch’s power now like ever before, placing even more sanctions on their ability to suspend and execute laws, create courts and commissions, levying money through prerogative, and keeping a standing army in peacetime. All the while securing rights such as free Parliamentary elections, right to maintain arms for defense (for protestants), freedom of speech in Parliamentary debates, no excessive bail/fines/cruel punishments, right to petition the king, and that Parliament must be held frequently. However the Toleration Act remained a continuity as it extended right to practice to non conformists which has been seen before during the Protectorate of the Commonwealth. A new change, however, was that should they meet the doors must be open at all times.

    The toleration act reflects the constitutional issue and religious politics in England as this is a time where Englands never been more divided. Before and even for a little while after the Reformation King demanded unity in their subjects faith, however now they no longer possess the powers to do so which reveals the constitutional issues. It is unclear with these new limits on the monarchy who is sovereign, monarch or parliament? And this friction between these two branches of government only exacerbates the issue of Religious politics as they have a Catholic king who wants to convert the English public and a Protestant Parliament that wants to protect their faith. James’ issuance of toleration was seen as going over the head of Parliament and beyond the scope of his power to enact legislation that would have been simple for the kings of old like Henry VIII. After the issuance revealed the constitutional crisis it did the exact thing the majority of the English didn’t want, give religious freedom. During the time of the Protectorate most minority religions were allowed to practice in peace and thus toleration reminds the English people of a time with a very unpopular government, hence the protestant crackdown by Parliament that came with the Restoration. Meanwhile the Toleration Act did very much the same thing religion wise, giving the nonconformist their right to prace back, if with a few restrictions. S however it came with the increased limitations of monarchy it failed to create the constitutional issues James’ issues of toleration did.

    The historical view of James II essentially was that he was a Catholic king of a Protestant nation and tried to catholicism it to the best of his ability. It seems to be widely understood that his case for toleration on the basis of every man having a right to his own conscience was simply a vehicle to legalize catholicism in England in a way that would be easier for the Protestant majority to swallow. In regards to actions taken by Louis XIV of France during his reign, James appears to have supported the mission but not the methods of achieving it. The historical views of William III of Orange were that of he was a savoir. He brought back the security of the Protestant religion to England under an agreement that significantly limited the powers of the monarch so that no one had to fear a period of personnel rule or tyranny again. Overall after his ascension to the throne he was seen as pragmatic, seasoned politician after his experience in the Netherlands. Historical views seem to understand “the Glorious Revolution” as a preventative event in history. For without Parliament bending the law and asking William III to invade, it is quite possible that James II would have tried like Mary to force a re-catholicization upon the entire nation. The Glorious Revolution not only avoided a change in religion but also any future issues of the monarchs seizing too much control without regard to Parliament or the people’s wishes. James fell and William succeeded because William had both Parliamentary and the the peoples support. James was trying to champion a reglion that for decades has seemed untrustworhty due to multiple assassination plots and was currently painted int he worst light due to Louis XIV’s crusade agaisnt heugonots. And in order to instill catholicism James would need more power than ever, while William was used to being an executive power in the Netherlands but with far more limits than an English kings ever had so that when the offer to rule England with similar limits came he had no problem agreeing to them. It was what he was accustomed to.

  3. After the Civil Wars there were still many questions about religion and sovereignty that needed to be answered and the rulers after the Civil war tried to answer them in different ways. James first tried to answer these questions with his issuance of toleration. In this issuance of toleration which he issued without the consent of Parliament. In it he abolished the need to make an oath to the Anglican Church and he allows all people to freely practice their religion and says the power to judge on ecclesiastical matters rests with the King. Later these same questions were again attempted to be answered in the Bill of Rights presented to William in Mary. In this document it outlaws anybody make laws or suspend laws by legal authority is illegal and that a commission court on ecclesiastical purposes is illegal which is what James supports. This is a huge statement in sovereignty as it denied the King the right to make or suspend laws without Parliament. Finally the Toleration Act attempted to answer the question in religion by requiring all English subjects swear loyalty to William and Mary and also that any dissenters must have their doors opened during meetings and their whereabouts known. These documents represent revolution in England in the way that more toleration of different religions is given and also that Parliament begins to take powers away from the Crown with the reign of William and Mary. At the same time it represents a continuity in the sense that the highest power is still the King and besides Jame’s declaration, Catholicism is still not supported.
    James’s issue of toleration reflected constitutional issues and religious politics slightly differently then the Toleration Act in some ways. James issue of tolerance dealt more with the Constitutional issue of who had the right to decide matters on Ecclesiastical matters Parliament or the King. Religious wise it dealt more with the toleration of all religions and by toleration James mean’t total toleration more or less. He seemed to be against any type of religious persecution and was in favor of allowing all people to follow whatever religion they please. These issues and views are slightly different then the ones looked at in the Toleration Act. In the Toleration Act the issue of who had the right on ecclesiastical matters was not up for debate as Parliament had already said that the king could not make or suspend any laws on these matters in the Bill of rights. Constitutionally the Toleration Act dealt more with which laws and statutes apply to whom and also what the punishment for breaking these laws should be. Religiously it also promoted toleration but not as freely as James issuance of Toleration. The Toleration Act said that the people must swear loyalty to the King and Queen regardless of their religion and that different religions could be practiced but the meeting whereabouts and sayings had to always be known. This is somewhat of an open door policy to say. So while it gave toleration it wasn’t a free toleration like James gave. These are the differences between these two documents.
    The historical views of James II, William III, and the glorious revolution are different among all types of historical accounts. James II is particularly controversial. In the first document James is described as someone who hated all types of persecution and believed in freedom of conscience for all types of people and religion. Meanwhile the second document paints him in a much more negative light describing him as solely against the Protestant and Anglican Church and essentially wanting to rid England of these people. Meanwhile William III is seen as more of a hero and the Glorious Revolution is looked on as a heroic act in English History. William is seen as the continental counterpart to the King of France and the hero to save protestants from persecution. The Glorious Revolution is seen as a deliverance from the evils of James II. This is why James II failed and William III succeeded. James II was seen as someone who was trying to force a religion onto the English people which was frowned upon by his subjects. Meanwhile William was seen as a hero for Protestantism, a hero for England, and compromised with Parliament and the English people. As a result people followed him faithfully.

  4. All of these legal decisions-James’ Issuance of Toleration, the Bill of Rights, and the Toleration Act-aimed to establish regulations and boundaries on the monarch and parliament. King Charles II’s reign was tightly tethered to his parliament. His parliament did not agree to his demands to toleration easily. This is an example of how the monarch’s power as sovereign was limited. These represent a revolution in English politics because they-specifically the Bill of Rights-eventually led to the declaration of parliamentary sovereignty. They mark continuity in English politics because it allowed those who were not conforming to the Church of England to continue practicing without fear of punishment. The decision to pass the Toleration Act of 1689 represented a legal decision that attempted to solve questions of use of religion.
    James’ issuance of toleration allowed people to practice all other faiths. His issuance of toleration generally explained who would make decisions for the Church of England: Parliament or the monarch. The Toleration Act was an official act passed by parliament that allowed nonconformists to worship in their own locations. Parliaments definition of “nonconformists” did not include Catholics, or anyone who rejected the trinity. This is in contrast to James’ issuance of toleration which claimed that virtually any faith would be tolerated. While this act was a step towards toleration, it still excluded a large percent of the English population. The Toleration Act also stated that nonconformists were not allowed to hold any political office. This aspect of the document is one example of the many rules in the act that proves that the Toleration Act of 1689 had stronger parameters, and thus included less toleration, than James’ issuance of tolerance.
    Historians have a vast variety of views on the Glorious Revolution. Steve Pincus, the other of the third text- “1688: The First Modern Revolution,” argued that King James II was not as tolerant as he is generally made out to be. He supported this claim by comparing James’ ideals and actions to those of the Gallicans, whose beliefs are absolutist in nature. In contrast, John Miller, author of the second text- “James II: a study in kingship,” claims that James’ commitment to toleration was “slow and complex”. He did not see James’ reign as one as harsh as did Pincus, rather, he saw it as a development of toleration over time. In many accounts, James fell and William succeeded because James’ reign was clouded with the notion of such strong evil, that William could only redirect England in a more positive direction.

  5. The text “James’ issuance of toleration, Bill of rights and Toleration act” was written by T.B. Macaulay in 1648. This text is written about how James came to power. The book writes about how James did not necessarily like toleration but without toleration there is conflict. During this time Kings and Queens are more of absolute sovereigns and they get to make the decision they want. On bigger issues, the King or queen goes to parliament to propose the idea. This is shown by Charles II when he asks parliament for toleration of religions and is struck down. These parallels are shown between James and Charles because nothing is happening for toleration of religion.
    The toleration acts reflect the constitutional issue because there is little unity in England at the time. The king is having a lot of trouble keeping everyone together. The toleration act brings people together because it allows for more religions to be accepted. This act also means that Parliament and the Monarch would make the decisions in England. This act did not mean that every religion would be tolerated, most of the population was not granted toleration. Little by little the crown was making changes.
    The third text, “1688: The First Modern Revolution”, was written by Steve Pincus. This text argued that James was not as tolerant as the other documents said he was. Pincus says that he supported an ancient ideology. John Miller, the author of the second text, believes that James was Tolerant but did not have a good plan. He believes that James had adjusted to toleration over time.

  6. These decisions made by James were an attempt to solve the question of sovereignty in the most Royalist way possible. Primarily, one must look at James’ Issuance of Toleration, as at the time, there was significant animosity between Parliament and the Monarchy, with James attempting to swing the pendulum of power back to the favor of the crown by attempting to bypass Parliament and re-establishing the monarch as the sole sovereign in English society. Laws of these times did have precedent, however the precedent was of the era of the Tudors and the powerful English monarchs preceding the English Civil War. Once realizing that a large Monarchical power grab would no longer be viable and as a Catholic James knew that he would not be allowed the power to standardize the English people back under Catholicism, he issued a widespread tolerance for most Christian faiths in England. However, although Tolerance did have a precedent under the Protectorate and Oliver Cromwell, James was the first to allow non-conforming sects of Christendom to practice their religions, as long as people knew exactly that they were practicing these religions and when they were practicing these religions. In direct opposition, the Bill of Rights is an example of a power grab gone right. In the passing of the Bill of Rights, Parliament was able to both significantly diminish the ability of James and the monarch to do things they had done for centuries and has reestablished that power in the hands of Parliament and the English people, as well as expanding Parliamentary power into the arenas of further checking the powers of the monarch whenever was deemed necessary.

    The Issuance of Tolerance by James as compared to the Toleration acts perfectly reflect the state of religious and constitutional politics in England at the time. The Issuance of Toleration reflects a political move by James, in making all religions legal, there was no way to persecute him for his Catholic faith in a Protestant nation. This was an Anti-Constitutional move by James, going directly past Parliament and levying laws to the English people. In doing this, James’ endgame was to regain the power of the Tudor Monarchs, knowing the Parliament was vehemently anti-toleration and wanted England to conform to nothing but the basic sects of Anglicanism Protestantism. However, this religious move by James backfired, as it led to the power of the monarch diminishing and the power of Parliament growing further. As a response to the Issuance of Toleration, Parliament passed the Toleration, allowing what James allowed but passing some restrictions on practicing of non conforming religions into law. This proved the Parliament officially had power over the monarch, with both parties passing laws and the Parliamentary law being what is used in English society.

    The historical view of James, William and the Glorious Revolution is purely dependent on both who was taking the historical account and when the historical account was taken. For example, concerning James II, the first source we read had James painted as a revolutionary Liberal who allowed toleration in England for the first time. On the other hand, the second source paints James as a reluctant tolerationist, actually despising the Protestant faith but opting to allow legal practice of Catholicism rather than fighting for England to become Catholic once again. On the other hand, William III and the glorious revolution are consistently looked at through a lens of heroism. As England had become almost fully Protestant, quite obviously, a protestant king was never going to be accepted by the public, and therefore when James was displaced by a protestant, it is looked at through a pleasant light by the English people and historians. William III and the Glorious Revolution are viewed as England’s return to Protestantism, led by a Protestant King and a Protestant Parliament, now England would finally be able to thrive under good, Protestant values.

  7. The Issue of Toleration from James II was an attempt to address sovereignty in the post English Civil War society. Since Cromwell’s death and his son’s failed attempt at ruling, there was a constant power struggle between the Crown and Parliament. James attempted to call on his “Divine Right” to rule as a justification for having sovereignty over any parliament. The last monarch to call on his God given right was Charles during the Civil War, so this was not well received. No longer having the power that the monarch had 100 years prior or even before the Civil Wars, James only option was to call for more toleration in English society. The influence of Puritans in Parliament had made Catholicism wildly unpopular so James II did not have much of a choice to get what he wanted. The Bill of Rights represented the final domino to fall in the shift from a society run by the King to one that had a firm Parliament that had never been so influential. While Parliament had secured a safe role in English politics that could not be undermined by the King, the Toleration Act remains a symbol of the ambiguity surrounding the English Church and who it should be run by.
    James II Issue of Toleration extended the rights of religious freedom in England in a time when the country had never been more divided. This document also established who would be governing the Church going forward. While the Issue of Toleration was more lenient, Parliament’s Toleration Act that allowed so called “non-conformists” to worship within their own private locations, however this did not include Catholics within the new law. This new law was a step forward but not including Catholics still isolated a large portion of the people and only heightened civil tensions. Under this new Parliamentary law Catholics were also forbidden from holding public office further showing the divide between the monarch and parliament.
    There are a litany of historical views held on James II, William III and the Glorious Revolution. In “1688: The First Modern Revolution,” James II is actually portrayed as much less tolerant than other historians make him out to be. The differing views among historians is seen when in a different document James II is thought to have truly been against religious persecution. William III is often portrayed as the Hero of the Glorious Revolution and the man who saved the Protestant nation of England from their French Catholic adversaries. William’s willingness to work with Parliament and not force a religion on the people made him more popular among the elites of his time and therefore remembered more favorable historically.

  8. The text James’ Issuance of Toleration, Bill of Rights and Toleration Act were written in 1648 by T.B. Macaulay. The text goes on to describe how James viewed tolerance specifically with regard to religion. It tells of how he wasn’t necessarily for tolerance but believed that without tolerance violence will ensue. And due to the aura of disagreement between Parliament and the Crown no real issues could come to any reasonable resolution. With no standing precedent for the actions James would take to restore the power of the throne back as the only sovereign power by bypassing Parliament has not been seen since the Tudors which was before the civil war. James realizing this plan no longer being viable for reinstituting Christianity in England opted for a secondary approach where instead he would preach for the tolerance of Christianity in English society. Where under the precedent of Oliver Cromwell James pushed for the tolerance of nonconforming sects of Christianity with a few given prerequisites. Such as letting people know who practice and where and when they practice those sects. The Bill of Rights, however, taking the complete opposite direction is an example of how a power grab can go poorly. With the Bill of Rights Parliament only cemented their own power whilst limiting the power of the Monarch further.

    The relationship between the Tolerance Act and Jame’s issue of Tolerance shows the connection between religion and constitutional politics. While James had done his law of tolerance for the Christian people it was more self-centered than many knew as it would help save himself from persecution as a Christian himself. This was in hopes of regaining the Tudor Monarch power that was lost years prior. Though this action would lead to Parliament to further increase their power while lowering the power of the monarch. Finally Parliament with the Tolerance act it gave what James wanted but with restrictions and showing who had the true power in English Society.

    The historical view is solely dependant on who and when it was taken down is the difference in James, William, and the Glorious Revolution. As for the first two texts paints James II in two very distinct and varying lights. The first being a King who pushed for tolerance under his rule, while the second is of him being reluctantly tolerant of the protestant faith and only caring for the legal practice of Christianity. Though quite differently William III and the Glorious revolution are seen more centrally with more of a heroism focus. Thus the return of a protestant Ruler seen by William III taking power would mean that England would finally be able to thrive.

  9. I know a major theme I have come to recognize as I look over the topics covered over the year is definitely the role in which people in power chose to use religion. As the Elizabethan and Stuart eras are looked back upon, the constant battle centered around religion and its power to enable, as well as many other things, continue to reign as a prominent theme. Furthermore, a constant battle between the crown and parliament has hindered likely decades of progress for the English up to this point in time as well. This fighting over power between the two sects and the subsequent role of law for parliament was a major theme especially in Charles II rule. These were a few problems James II hoped to resolve with his Issuance of Toleration, as well as his Bill of Rights and Toleration Act. Although not fond of toleration necessarily, James II did not want to see such wicked persecution among his people and thus through his Issuance of Tolerance declared that people were free to practice whichever religion they please.Additionally, James II hoped to establish a much stronger system with regards to the involvement of Parliament and its power within the English government. Specifically in the Bill of Rights, James II and his fellow authors establish an English government with a Parliamentary system unable to be undermined by the crown. Earlier in his reign, James II called for sovereignty and the reception was poor due to the outcomes of Charles II doing the same. The crown’s subsequent actions in altering the governmental system allowed a more modern ruling England in taking away power from the monarch.

    When compared to James II Issuance of Toleration, the Toleration Act portrays the divides. that still lie within England at the time. For James II, the publication of his Issuance of Toleration was mostly for political gain. Assuming he had a parliament under him that was anti-toleration, he passed acts that hopefully undermined them and at the same time regaining power within the government. Due to their new power however, parliament chose to alter the same documents to their liking and publish what would be known as the Toleration Act. Both legal actions were made to undermine their opponent within the English government and this phenomena is one that can be seemingly tracked throughout English history. A major addition by parliament was that no Catholic would be able to hold office. Of course with James II being Catholic, this was an obvious revolt in the face of the crown and his followers. The same divide between the crown and parliament in government was also being felt within society as well. These growing distastes for one another breaded a bitter England.

    James II seems to be agreed upon as being a Catholic king of a Protestant nation who, although his Issuance of Tolerance, hoped to convert much of his country to his religion. Disputed is how greatly James II despised Protestants and whether or not he truly believed in his legal publications regarding national tolerance. These publications seem to differ opinions based on when they were published and the background of their author. In the first text, James II is made out to be a less tolerant king than history would have you believe and emphasizes that these legal actions were all political ploys and did not align with the king’s personal views. The second text however saw James II as a more committed king to toleration. While agreeing that James II was not one hundred percent on board with toleration, the second text argues that he still wished to learn overtime because he ultimately wanted was best for his people and England. With regards to the tone they were written, James II seems to be criticized much greater than William III. William III seems to be revered as a hero to Protestantism, while James II can be attributed to a confused king passively forcing his religion onto his subjects. These opposite accounts of two kings who were both attempting to spread their religion can also be likely attributed to the manner in which they interacted with parliament. James II’s combative history with parliament likely contributed to the his critical reception, while William III and his collaborative history with Parliament like helped in his being regarded as a great king. An argument could be made that William III was destined for success from the start of his reign solely due to the previous mistakes by James II. James II having such a negative public opinion, allowed William III to capitalize on such low expectations and achieve status arguably greater than deserved.

  10. “James’ Issuance of Toleration, Bill of Rights and Toleration Act” was written by T.B. Macaulay in 1648. This text describes King James’ views towards religious toleration. In this text, Macaulay emphasizes that James was not enthralled by the idea of religious toleration. However, he feared that if he did not enact more religious toleration, more Catholic people would be killed and executed for their religious beliefs. During this time, there was a constant grappling between the Crown and Parliament. This grappling mainly stemmed from the political dilemma of who held more power. Moreover, they were unable to come to a consensus when it came to negotiating what was the right way to address this issue. This led to James doing something his previous successor did, which is declaring his divine right to have a monarchial rule and sovereignty over parliament. This had not been done since the Tudor era, so this caused a lot of uproar. James realized that this form of ruling was not suitable for fixing these issues. James decided the best option was to advocate for toleration of Christianity in England. However, this toleration did not have a precedent under Oliver Cromwell’s; James decided to allow non-conforming sects of Christianity. This acceptance however came with expectations for Christians, such as them knowing what they were practicing and where they were gonna practice them.
    The Bill of Rights, constituted a English revolution for the battle of power between Parliament and the monarchy. This eventually created more problems in England then solved them. Parliament was eager to limit the power of the monarchy to retain their own. However, this created more of a political divide in England, and made it more difficult to come to a consensus on decision making.

    The Innuance Toleration Act encapsulates a time where England was immensely divided due to constitutional and religious politics in England. This Act represents James’ political moves to protect himself from execution. James was aware that by having religious toleration, him and his family could not be killed for being Catholic. In doing so, he continuously went against Parliament and tried to reestablish the role of a divinely right king; he would enact and levy his own laws without the approval from parliament. James thought that by doing this he was killing two birds with one stone; saving himself and allowing more religious toleration. However, in the end this gave parliament more power and weakened James’ power immensely. When Parliament passed the Toleration Act, the abided by some of the things that James’ passed, with the acceptance of certain limitation and restrictions.

    In the text, “1688:The First Modern Revolution”, the different viewpoints of James II, William II, and the Glorious Revolution is emphasized. In the first text James is describes as a king advocating for religious tolerancy and in the second text they describe him as hesitant for religious tolerance. This is mainly because King James is a Catholic King ruling in a mainly Protestant country. Therefore, it created a plethora of doubts from the public.

  11. James II’s Declaration of Indulgence asserts the “royal prerogative” to call Parliament together to pass the measures of the crown. Whig Dissenters were likely pleased that penal laws enforcing Church attendance were suspended. Toleration of dissent represents a continuation of Charles II’s policies of dispensations. James II also removed the oaths of supremacy and allegiance that King Charles II enacted a decade prior. The power of the sovereign was changed with the issuance of these legal decisions. No longer would allegiance have to be pledged to the Church of England. James was free to fill his government with members that supported Roman Catholicism.
    The Bill or Rights presented to William and Mary glories their reign as being chosen by God and names them and their “survivor” as the rightful monarchs of Britain. It demands Parliaments approval to suspend and execute laws and raise armies. It also proposes revolutionary ideas like free elections of Parliament’s members, free speech, and the avoidance of “cruel and unusual punishments.” The Bill of Rights diverges from the era of James II be reinstating the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to those as required by law.
    William and Mary’s Toleration Act falls in line with historical precedent by making concessions to non-Anglican Protestants, but maintains the strong control of government over religious matters. Religion was viewed as an “effectual means to unify their majesties’ Protestant subjects.” Parliament would not grant concessions to those classified as dissenters. Church of non-Anglican leaning would be allowed to persist only if registers and conducted with open doors.
    The Toleration act reflects constitutional issues in the sense that James dismantled oaths of allegiance and supremacy while William and Mary reinforced them. Considering these oaths require a declaration of faith to the crown and a disavowing of Roman Catholic “arbitrary power”, the choice of incorporating or removing these oaths as government policy is a matter of serious constitutional concern.

    James II and William III clearly take opposing views on the Glorious Revolution given that William’s cause was victorious and James II suffered defeat and exile in France. William succeeded due to opportunistic timing although he would reinstate the idea of divine providence to legitimize his rule with the masses. William III saw his victory as a victory for Protestantism and centralized government. James II was unable to realize his vision of a return to Roman Catholicism. “Glory” was won in the revolution through a hostile takeover that flipped English history on its head.

  12. Both the James’ Issuance of Toleration, and the Toleration acts are each texts that reflect an effort to resolve English challenges in sovereignty, law, and religion that arose during Charles II’s reign. The issue of sovereignty is resolved within the later text the Bill of Rights and the Toleration Acts. These laws established in 1689 after the abdication of James II and before the reign of William and Mary, determined the principle that the King and Queen were subject to the law through a thirteen specific requirements. Each of these 13 principles limited the power that was given to the ruling monarch by giving parliament legal oversight of the ruling powers actions. The bill of rights and toleration acts were thus able to set in stone laws that the ruling and parliamentary powers were required to follow. In the case of during James II’s reign we can see no liberal nor democratic change in law. Essential the only true apparent change in law is that in the repealing of the penal laws first established under Queen Elizabeth. The repealing of these laws essentially allows for Catholic and non protestant individuals to practice their religion freely. This is a change in both religion and law, however it does not necessarily display the advancement of society in the end due to the resulting persecution of protestants as depicted within James’ Issuance of toleration. In the end the Bill of rights and toleration acts set up the laws in which toleration and religious acceptance will operate and work within England. Limits are placed of the monarchs own religion saying no ruler will be catholic and that no citizen may be forced to attend specific services and ceremonies. Thus through this comparison you can see the evolution of English politics and religion. During James II’s reign no true advancement was made in the favor of the English Church and the majority of the English people. Though through the Bill of Rights and Toleration acts many rights and liberties were given to the people of the Three Kingdoms illustrating revolution, evolution, and the development of government and the nation.

    The Glorious revolution in English history is the time in which James II abdicated the thrown and was succeeded by William III and Mary II. The difference between these Monarch and Mary’s father was that of their ability to submit and acknowledge the wants and desires of the people. James II believed deeply in the dispensing power of the king and the powers ability to be used for “ecclesiastical purposes.” This put James II above the law which lead to action detrimental to the well being of his people and thus his fall. Whereas both William and Mary when they succeeded the thrown they were required to submit to both the Bill of rights and the toleration acts. Whether or not they did this willingly the submitted to these rules and followed them. thus resulting in not only a successful ascension but a successful reign. Their acceptance and promotion of religious tolerance lead to more peace for the English people and better days then they had had during both Charles II and James II reigns.

  13. James’ Issuance of Toleration reflects attempts to solve questions of sovereignty, role of law and use of religion that mounted during Charles II’s rule, by issuing toleration to Catholics. James Issuance of Toleration was passed without the Parliament’s consent therefore addressing the question of the relation of Parliament and Sovereign. Charles II was constantly compromising with Parliament, however James II decided to make his own decisions, however this angered the congress. His actions also angered the Tories. James II needed to rely on the Tory party being for the monarchy, but they found it hard to swallow his tolerance and promotion of Catholics, especially in the military. Hence why William and Mary’s Bill of Rights repealed the right for Protestants to be denied arms. This concerned the country because it involved the arming of Papists. His rule of law was slightly contradicting. James II was outraged that “loyal men should be excluded from the public service solely for being Roman Catholics,” but he himself had fired the Treasurer on the sole basis of his Protestantism. James’ also attempts to solve the issue of religion by modeling his rule after Louis XIV. However due to the constant religious turmoil in England he was not as fanatical about persecuting the Huguenots as the Catholic French King, Louis XIV.

    In comparison to James’ Issuance of Toleration the Toleration Act directly contrasts it. The point of William and Mary’s Toleration Act was designed to remove Catholic papists from power. It brought back the tests and oaths that James II so fervently opposed. Whereas James’ Issuance of Toleration allowed all religions to practice and obtain the right to office. The Toleration Act made it legal to persecute Catholics under several statutes “An Act for Preventing Dangers Which May Happen from Popish Recusants.” This in combination with an act denying Catholics the right to be elected to Parliament completely counter-acted James’ intent in the Issuance of Toleration. James’s intent was to have loyalty more important than religion.

    There is a very different viewpoint regarding the historical views of James and Williams regarding the Glorious Revolution. Some historical perspectives saw James II as admiring Catholic French King Louis XIV. They claimed he rejoiced that Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, and supported the persecution of the huguenots. They claimed that he modeled his government after the french government. However other perspectives claimed that Louis was not passing the Issuance of Toleration because of religious conviction about the sacredness of Catholicism. “What he really wanted was not liberty of conscience for the members of his own church, but liberty to persecute the members of other churches.” Finally William and Mary’s viewpoint was that they were succeeding in the areas that James’ failed. James II failed in gaining popular support when he “assumed and exercised a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament.” In post Civil war England, obtaining consent and compromising with Parliament was of the utmost importance. This is where William and Mary were successful and James failed.

  14. In the first text by T.B. Macaulay “History of England from the Accession of James II, Macaulay discusses how James II handled religion. The text states the James believed that men should be able to hold certain political offices regardless off their religion, but he turned away a protestant treasurer because he was a protestant. Many of his close family members and friends had been turned away from their duties based of religion as well. In this sense James ix very similar to Henry VII, who merely used religion as a means to gain power. IF it suits James to have a catholic in power he will say that a person can have whatever religion they will like, but if this person disagrees with James he will disband him because of his religion. James is more worried about the power and influence that he can amass by using religion to his advantage, and exploiting the power that comes from it.

    In the second articles by John Miller, “James II a study in kingship”, Miller discusses James time as king and his ideas and commands. James believed that republicans would rebel if they were not properly dealt with, so he decided to double the size of his army. Now this makes sense because James like his two fathers was an absolute monarch who believed that his power came directly from God. James did not want to allow any one the chance to rebel against him, and was willing to take whatever measure possible to do that. He also enlisted 100 catholic officers in his army. James was a catholic, and he feared that protestant generals may aid the rebellion against him so he enlisted his own men who were completely loyal to him. While James claimed that he did not support religious persecution this was not completely his actions. He has never supported people who did not agree with his views, dissenters and Anglicans, so it was easy to see why people doubted him when he switched to the idea of toleration. James also made many laws for the catholic people for example he wanted to get rid of test acts. This causes problems in the kingdom as James and his subjects saw things in very different lights, and they did not like how he allowed people to convert. After James rule ends it makes sense that the people would not give the next king as much power as they gave him because they felt that James had wronged them and misused it.

    In the third text 1688 by Steve Pincus, Pincus discusses how James rule was not of toleration but that of an absolute monarch with an authoritarian view. While James claimed that he was a religious toleration man, the evidence shows other wise. James believed that with great religious teacher and correction all his subjects would convert to Catholicism. His rule was more of the old catholic kings, and Augustinian view where Protestantism was considered heresy. James wanted to put on the face of a modern king who was right and just but truly he was against toleration and wanted to enforce Catholicism. James was also a huge supporter of Louis XIV, and was known to tell him that he was doing everything he could to enforce the advancement of Catholicism and trying to get his people to revolt. James was seen as a step back in the advancement of the people’s rights as he followed his father and his father in his rule of absolute monarch who tried to control parliament to do his agenda. James main goal was to make the appearance that he tolerated religion but in reality he really only tolerated the catholic religion. He told Ireland subjects that they could have religious freedom but only if they were catholic. James wanted to put on the face of a reformed and tolerant king and those were the words he used to speak to the people, but his actions and decrees show that he was against the protestant faith and was only interested in advancing the catholic faith.

    The third text is by T.B. Howell, “declaration of Indulgence” written in 1687. In this declaration, Charles seems as if he is very tolerant of all religions. He suspends having to take sacrament and other penal laws should be suspended which seems very tolerant of him. But later in the article he also dismissed any test act that a person would have to take or be penalized for not taking. James was a known catholic so for him and his supporters it would not matter if mass was required because they would take it anyway, but they did need the test acts to be gone so that they could go back into the military field and government offices. James sneaks a huge win in for catholic supporters by giving something minor to the protestants. This makes James look like a tolerant king with his words, but his actions show that he is not.

    The last article is “the bill of rights” that was presented to William and Mary after the end of James II reign. These rules make the power to suspend laws, making sure parliament does not meet, and the creation of a standing army all illegal. All of these thing sound familiar because they were all thing that James did during his reign. The people are tired of a monarch who believes in his divine right from God to rule absolute, and they want the true power to be in the hands of the people and parliament not the king. This is a huge step in the power of parliament, because when William and Mary agree to these rules, the power of the king and queen has been reduced a lot. This allows parliament to have greater power over England and will never allow people like James II to rule again. This response is what would be expected after there was a king who turned back so many reformation ideas in England.

  15. The texts “James’ Issuance of Toleration, Bill of Rights and Toleration Act” were written by T.B. Macaulay in 1648. James Issuance of Toleration, the Bill of Rights, and the Toleration Act were attempted to solve the rising questions about sovereignty, role of law, and the use of religion that mounted during the reign of Charles II. James issuance of toleration paved the way to allow for all people to practice their different sects of Christianity freely, as long as they followed his guidelines. James of Issuance of Toleration was an attempt to to allow all his people to feel comfortable under his reign by allowing them to freely practice their religion, even though he did not fully support the idea of toleration. However, James knew that persecution of these people would only cause a further divide with the crown and Parliament, which would make the already strenuous relationship even more volatile. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights allowed Parliament to limit the powers of the crown and James, which they had struggled to do for hundreds of years. Now, Parliament could not be undermined by James and his “Divine Right” and the members of Parliament now had some checks and balances for the crown. Although this was by no means a perfect solution to the struggle for power between James and Parliament, it was a step in the right direction. Finally, the Toleration Act of 1689 attempted to resolve the dilemma of religion, which had also been a widespread issue throughout England for centuries. The Toleration Act attempted to have all the English people to openly support William and Mary and declare their allegiance to them, as well as have all people practice their religions with open doors and freely. This represented a revolution in English politics because it attempted to mend the divide between Parliament and the crown, allowed for more religious freedom, and attempted to strip power from the monarch. Although this was a step in the right direction for England, there were still many issues on their hands, such as that Catholicism was still not allowed under James, even with his religious tolerance.

    The Issuance of Tolerance from James and the Toleration Act reflect how the states of constitutional issues and religious politics during England at the time. James Issuance of Toleration was a smart political maneuver by James to protect himself from execution. James knew that if he had proclaimed religious tolerance, that he could not be prosecuted or executed for practicing his Catholic faith in a mostly Protestant society. However, this move ended up having unintended consequences for James, since this further divided the crown and Parliament. By doing this, James was still fighting for the idea of Divine Right to Rule and the fact that he was the highest authority in England, which Parliament did not support. Unfortunately for James, Parliament was able to use this ammunition to limit the powers of the crown as well as increase their own power. Finally, as a response to James, Parliament passed the Toleration Act, which kept some of what James had passed, but had stricter limitations for the people.

    The historical views of James, William, and the Glorious Revolution depend on the author of the text and the timing of the text. For example, the two texts portray James II very differently from each other. The first text portrays James II as a reasonable, thoughtful ruler that had fought for allowing toleration in England for the first time ever. The second text, however, shows James II as a strict monarch pushing for Divine Right who would reluctantly tolerate the protestant faith that he despised. Mainly, he wanted to support the main religion of Catholicism, the religion that he supports. On the other hand, William and the Glorious revolution were seen as major successes for the time. William had led the English people and government back to a Protestant ideology and government, which would allow for a more prospering monarch and Parliament that would attempt to work hand and hand for the people.

  16. James was inconsistent in how he approached the issues that had been building in England. The most revolutionary aspect of James’ policies was in religious freedom. For the first time in decades, Catholics were equally regarded in society. Catholics were allowed to be in government. Despite his expansion of religious toleration, he did not expand political rights in England. He believed that his subjects were to listen to him without exception. Moreover, he continued to have conflicts with Parliament, especially over spending. In this sense, he was a continuation of the same problems that had plagued England.

    The two different guidelines issued by the monarchs vary in substaintile ways. During the reign of James, he placed an emphasis on religious freedom for Catholics. He allowed them to participate in government and participate in society. This is in direct contrast to the beliefs and reform of William. During his reign Catholics were prohibited from becoming a monarch. Also people were required to take an oath stating allegiance to the king and refusal to the pope. Politically, William sought to reign in the abuses of power that James carried. This includes James suspending laws that he did not agree with.

    The historical view between James and William varies immensely.James is seen as an outlier in England’s long term shift towards Protestantism. William and the Glorious Revolution is seen as the return to ‘normal’. The failures of James can be attributed to a variety of factors. James appeared to be much more friendly to Catholic France than Protestant Holland. However, he is believed to have genuinely disapproved of how the Huguenots were persecuted in France. Nonetheless, his friendliness towards a Catholic country angered many of his subjects. Moreover, James was not a fan of specific laws, as he saw then as too restricting. Instead, he stuck to clear cut concepts of law that revolved around him maintaining power over his subjects.

  17. James II’s Declaration of Indulgence, issued in 1687 and 1688, establishes that “penal laws in matters ecclesiastical… be immediately suspended.” Thus, subjects who do not go to Church or those who do not take the “oaths of supremacy and allegiance” will now not suffer any consequences. Not only is this a significant religious development and deviation from Parliament, but it is a political deviation from Parliament as well. Within this declaration, James cites his “royal prerogative” to enact these laws, therefore taking political power away from Parliament. This reflects Charles II’s dissolving of Parliament towards the end of his reign. The Bill of Rights and Toleration Act, then, reflect Parliament recapturing its power during the Glorious Revolution. The Bill of Rights starts off by listing all of James’ illegal acts, and then goes on to declare measures illegal, such as “the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament.” This acts also deals with religion, making it harder to express allegiance to Rome within the new England. The Toleration Act further shows Parliament’s power, extending some toleration to former dissenters but still making it clear that Papists are not appreciated within the country. This cycle resembles that of power in the Civil War to some extent. While the king first had and abused power, Parliament eventually takes hold of this power to govern England.

    James and his issuance of toleration assume the “royal prerogative” of the crown to make laws without the approval of Parliament. James, a Catholic himself, was probably trying to give himself personal freedom of religion as well. This assumed power also taken by some of his relatives lead to Parliament’s eventual regaining of power and sovereignty. The Toleration Act, passed by Parliament, shows the constitutional development of Parliament taking its power to govern England back. They are now able to declare what’s legal and what is not, and this power does not lie with the king. In terms of religion, this act gives credit to the Catholics who did not take complete advantage of the time under the issuance of toleration. This led Parliament to give dissenters some leeway, but overall Papists became highly frowned upon again, at least in the eye of the law. This can be seen within article XIV of the act, where it is established that no “ease, benefit, or advantage” will be given to any Papist.

    The historiography on James II’s religious policy is diverse. In “James II: A Study in Kingship,” written by John Miller, James is portrayed as someone who sanctioned toleration for out of political motivation. Indeed, he needed support from religious dissenters after his fall out with the Anglican Church. Nevertheless, Miller recognizes some sincerity in the way that James goes about religious toleration. He cites, for example, the way that James had a positive relationship with William Penn and slightly admired the Quaker way of life. In contrast to Miller’s mixed view of James, Steven Pincus in “1688: The First Modern Revolution” states that James’ religious toleration was all out of political motivation, and that he really only supported the doctrine in an outward facade. T.B. Macaulay, too, tends to agree that William “pretending to abhor tests, he had himself imposed a test.” Overall, however, people were aware of James II being Catholic; the Immortal Seven’s letter to William of Orange can show how Protestantism was making its rise up in England once again. The somewhat absolutist James would be replaced by the Protestant William, and Parliament would once again gain the sovereignty that it deserved.

  18. During Charles II’s rule, there were ongoing debates about the authority of a sovereign, religion, and the law. James’ Issue of Toleration works to alleviate some of this stress by declaring that there would no longer be executions of individuals practicing other religions, a joint effort by the King and Parliament. In the Bill of Rights and Toleration Act, Parliament combats the persistent issue of the King overstepping his power by formally declaring illegal acts which James II was a fan of doing. This revolutionizes the previous absolution of English government by enforcing a vital role of Parliament in decision making and administrative businesses. However, this shows a continuation of the theme of the struggle for power between Parliament and the King.
    In contrast to James’ Issue of Toleration, Parliaments’ Issue of Toleration takes a different approach to the religious issue. There is still high tensions between dissenters and those loyal to the church of England. Parliament was quick to ensure that James’ issue to be disenfranchised. The new issue declares it illegal to practice any other religion than that of the Church of England–even in private. It also enforces the importance of piety on Sunday’s. Requiring an oath declaring loyalty to the Church of England, the issue warns against dissenters. Citizens must also pay to the church. Concluding with a diss focused at Papists, Parliament works to reinforce their religious convictions politically.
    These texts differ in their outlooks of James’ II and the projected people’s views. Pincus demonstrates the contrasting differences between people and how some recognized that James is king so he had to right to behave as he did, but some saw him out of line. Miller takes religious conflict into consideration, but also economic strife under James’ as an element to his fall. Macaulay largely credits James’ fall to religious intoleration. James also overstepped his powers, in the view of Parliament. To all three authors, “The Glorious Revolution” occurred with a switch in power and a reconsideration of where power lies. This event is also significant to all three due to its timing. This is recognized as the first “modern revolution.” With growing influences of the political ideals which still have ripples in today’s politics, this revolution of sorts marks a new era in political climate.

  19. The questions of sovereignty, the role of law and the use of religion in England had caused huge rifts between the crown and Parliament among early Stuarts. James II attempted to answer these questions during his reign and in his “Declaration of Indulgence” he made it clear that he would maintain the Church of England and allowed increased toleration in England. James was a Catholic and so this toleration served his interest in supporting Catholics’ right to be Catholic but it shows continuity in the exercising of his power. While James’ changes in toleration were revolutionary it all stems from the same royal prerogative that the Early Stuarts caused so many problems over. James’ religious policy only massively differs from the other Stuarts because he is a Catholic and the laws reflect the sovereign’s opinion. So while James’ policy looks revolutionary but is actually not, “the Bill of Rights” were legal documents presented to William and Mary that did represent a revolution in politics. These documents are revolutionary because they attempt to limit monarchical power and increase Parliamentary power as few laws ever did. “The Toleration Acts” are another example of continuity because while they do support toleration they really seem to be attempting to roll back James’ tolerant policies.
    “The Toleration Acts” and “James’ Declaration of Indulgence” are both attempts to answer the same questions about English society. Both of these documents attempt to do the same thing for their respective monarchs. As a Catholic in England, James believed toleration to be important so that his religious kin could worship freely. William and Mary allow this toleration that James enacted but as Protestants, they fear power in the hands of Catholics. To combat this, William and Mary use the Toleration Acts as a way to make sure that “dissenters” know that they do not really support their religion. The Toleration Acts separate the English people into dissenters and conformists under William and Mary. The Toleration Acts differ from James’ Declaration in that William and Mary seem to have used Parliament to enact their laws while James, as many Stuarts before him had, exercises his royal prerogative. This shows a political shift in power from the Crown to Parliament.
    The different views of English history show how the different monarchs acts did not necessarily reflect how they felt about politics and religion. T.B. Macaulay shows how the monarchs attempted to outwardly claim toleration even if they did not support it. This can be seen in both William and Mary and James’ reign because they both enacted tolerant policies while attempting to undermine other religious groups. Historically, James’ motivations are ambiguous but William’s opinions are seen as less ambiguous. James is seen as using toleration as a mask for his attempts to strengthen Catholicism in England. Towards the end of his reign, James is seen as a figure who needs to be held accountable by some power with oversight. Parliament takes up this mantle and brings in William and Mary in an attempt to bring about a strong Protestant dynasty. The Glorious Revolution is seen as a turning point in English history that halted James’ religious policies but also stopped the Stuart tradition of battling Parliament. William and Mary are seen as the heroes of the story for coming in without shedding blood and removing James. James fell partly because of his religion but also because of his demeanor. William and Mary succeed because they work with Parliament, are Protestant and use the fear of Catholicism that is implanted in the English psyche.

  20. The civil war left many of the questions regarding sovereignty and religion unanswered. Different English leaders attempted to answer these questions in different ways. For instance, James II declared an issuance of toleration without the consent of Parliament. James did this in a typical Stuart fashion of believing the King was above the law; the king is the law. James II declared English people need not pledge an oath to the Anglican church and they were free to worship however they please. James II saw this as his divine right as king. These questions continued to be asked beyond James II reign, as it was presented in the Bill of Rights to William and Mary. These proposed rights would make it illegal for a monarch to make or suspend a law without Parliament’s consent. Finally, the King could not simply do as he pleased, he needed to have permission of representatives of the people. Once William and Mary were installed as monarchs, Toleration acts required all citizens to swear loyalty to the new Monarchs. That said, those in disagreement were allowed to meet but not in secret. This allowed for a little toleration. During this time, Parliament was gaining more power at the expense of the Crown while the government was finding ways to allow for toleration despite their ever-present paranoia.

    The Toleration Act much better preserved England as a protestant nation than James II issues of toleration. The monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, so allowing mass toleration per James II issuance would allow people to not be loyal to the king. Additionally, it required dissenters to be open about their meetings. This ensured that the Monarch had control over the people and would be able to prevent uprisings and conflicts like the civil war. James II issuance of toleration however could be interpreted as causing anarchy. It allowed anyone to believe what they pleased, which many viewed as an agent of chaos. The toleration act better reflected English constitutional issues because it ensured the English people were loyal.

    These historical accounts all differ. The most controversial of the discussed figures is James II. The first document hails James II as visionary for the individual. He claims James II did what he did to promote free conscience and to release English Citizens from the clutches of their own government. However, the second document says James II was just a catholic fighting against Protestantism. William is seen as a hero of the Glorious Revolution. He is viewed as the man that saved English Protestants from James II. The popular monarch, William, succeeded because he shared more in common with the English people. For these reasons, William is viewed as a hero and was followed faithfully.

  21. The two issues, James’ Issuance of Toleration and The Bill of Rights are an attempt by those in power to determine the sovereign authority between the king and parliament. In an attempt to gain more absolute power over parliament, James used the law to grant himself religious authority over parliament. This action is a revolution yet a continuity at the same time. Historically, monarchies had held power over their parliaments dating back to Henry VIII, however in recent times, parliament has gained more power. It continues the trend of monarch sovereignty but at the same time represents setbacks to the parliamentary progress of power. The Bill of Rights is a revolution, granting parliament even more enumerated powers while limiting the king’s powers. Powers such as free parliamentary elections, freedom of speech, protection against excessive punishment, and the ability to control when parliament is in session. While the king became limited in their ability to suspend and execute laws, create courts, levy money through taxes. The toleration act is a continuity as it allows and now promotes all non-conformist rights to practice.

    James’ issue of toleration is more concerned with the sovereignty of toleration. Who has the right to decide if England is politically tolerant, the monarchy or parliament. He advertised open religious tolerance and was against religious persecution against any religion. More so than parliament, he preached absolute toleration against religion. Parliament’s toleration act is less of a stand against the sovereignty of the decision of toleration than the issuance. However, it is still tolerant of other religions, but not all. Parliament more than reigning sovereign on toleration wanted to clarify what articles of toleration applied to what groups. The largest difference was that the Toleration act said that people were free to worship but, had to pledge fealty to the king and queen and had to make their meeting location and time known.

    With any event that has previous accounts of and different authors, ranging from different backgrounds all have their own perspective of the event which affects the way it is recorded. In the third text “1688: The First Modern Revolution” Pinicus makes the argument that James is not as tolerant as we historically remember him. He supports it by comparing James’ actions to those of Glicians, whose beliefs were absolut in nature. Where as in the second text “James II: A study in Kingship,” Miller argues that James developed his sense of toleration over time and that his rule was not as harsh as believed. The general consensus about why James fell and William succeded is that James’ reign was so evil that William was the only one who could save England.

  22. The legal decisions that present themselves within the texts represent the issues of sovereignty that plagued English society at the time. Primarily these issues of sovereignty steemed between differences seen via the monarch and parliament in who if at all would essentially be a single sovereign power or if sovereignty could be split effectively. Prior rulings within English society showed the struggle of power between Cromwell and parliament but also were representative of older Tudor struggles of the monarchy and the bloodshed and destruction that occurred during the civil wars. These legal decisions that James’ faces are representative of these struggles over time. More specifically, the issuance of toleration from James was a way to prevent Catholics from being persecuted within society and appease those regardless of their religion. Although James’s issuance of toleration is interpreted in many different ways as seen via the other texts, it was also a way for him to try and assert himself as a single powerful sovereign. The bill of rights which was instantiated after the overthrow of James II represents a push for limitation of the monarch within the English government as well as rights in parliament such as required occurrences, free elections, and freedom of speech. The toleration act essentially excluded Catholics however allowed dissenters to practice their worship freely from oppression. Ultimately it becomes clear that the understanding of the power within English society has yet to be officially defined as proponents and opponents of these legal decisions represent the continued struggle between parliament and the monarch.

    The toleration act reflects both constitutional issues and religious politics in England due to the application compared to James’ issuance of toleration. James’ issuance of toleration was seen by some as a way for him to alleviate oppression and show support for catholicism within England. This essentially was representative of power from a single monarch and was in opposition not only to protestants but parliament and a society that was checked via power divided between sovereigns. The Toleration act therefore strictly did not apply to Catholics and was issued to dissenters of protestant religion which allowed them to practice their faith. Additionally, the Toleration act was not complete freedom to practice religion in any way that one wished. There were requirements such as keeping the doors open to a religious establishment that was intended to prevent the plotting and secrecy of allowing an uprising or rebellion in which was seen previously in English society. Additionally, these nonconformists were not allowed to hold political any office. It becomes clear that the Toleration act was less tolerant than James’ issuance of toleration. However, this shows the political efforts of appeasement and the attempt to create justification even if the legal decision in question was less meaningful than some might have hoped. James’ issuance of toleration also shows that attempting to levy the constitutional power in a way of such toleration creates a justification for parliament and opposition to limit his ecclesiastical powers.

    The views of James II and William III vary in regard to the understanding of the relationship that they held with the people of England. The general perception of James II was that he lead a pro catholic life that was in support of toleration so that those who were not in line with protestant thinking would be able to effectively practice their faith without persecution from the government. Based on these readings the perception of him seemed to be greatly varied depending on the accounts of each historian. Some consider that James II didn’t really want liberty for the members of his own church but the ability to persecute members of other churches. Others felt that in general, James was this figure that was extremely pro toleration and sympathized with victims of persecution. While others feel that the acts of James were in contrast to toleration and that the influence of French Catholics assisted in the fact that James was no the defender of religious pluralism imaged by revisionist historians. Much of these texts do not discredit but bring to light the fact that William III was very popular with the people. It is reinforced that there was security for protestants in the way that William III was able to limit the power of the monarchy and reinforce a parliamentary role within society. The glorious revolution can be seen as a revolution that overthrew James II and the concern for the possible return to civil wars and conflict that had shed so much blood and pain within England. Much of Williams III success can be attributed to this more rational distribution of power that essentially limits the monarchy and prevents abuse by a single sole sovereign.

  23. James’s issuance of toleration is one point in a constant struggle of power between both the monarch and parliament. The role of the monarch ever since they was a king, had been slowly decreasing and giving more power to the parliament. After Charles’ last push to put James, a catholic on the throne, James’ number one problem was about catholics. Through the document “The history of England from the accession of James” T.B Macaulay shows that James hated the fact of persecution of his fellow catholics. He feels like they haven’t done anything wrong since they are catholics and he wants to put a stop to this. So when he creates the Act of Toleration not to help everyone, but just himself. He manages to use religion tolerance as a stepping stone to potential religious domination from the catholics. As there was a step pushed from the monarch side, in reaction was a massive push from parliament. From the fear of what could potentially happen to protestants, called in his daughter Mary and prince William of Netherlands, both protestants, to come and take the throne. This may continue the power shift that has been happening to years from parliament, but we have never seen such a large shift in power to be able to peacefully take the king off ever. In the “bill of rights and toleration act” you see parliament clamping down on the things that the new king can do and William, used to this little power from the dutch, accepting it. This big step of a power shift can be seen as a revolution.
    When you look at the toleration act, you begin to very clearly see the flaws and how this is a clear violation of power. With the growing diversity of religion in England, protestants still were much in power in parliament. The king used to be able to push forward a state religion however after huge power shifts in the direction of parliament, it was unclear what the sovereign could do. Having seen what was happening to his fellow catholics and no one being extremely clear on what the king can and can’t do, he passed the toleration act. Though James managed to get religious toleration for catholics, he also had to do it for everyone else, not helping either party. Both James and parliament were in a constant battle to try and make their religion the state religion. With James forcefully trying to create toleration for catholics, manages to give it to everyone, causing negatives for both parties. So now, parliament was pushed into a position where the king will continue blatantly trying to push catholics back into power and parliament could either give in, or have to do something drastic.
    James II was always seen as a very catholic man who wanted his people to share his own views. Unfortunately, the majority of his country was protestant and planned to stay that way. He wanted to convert his country to catholicism but wanted to do it overtime. He realized that if he pushed too forcibly, like the way Louis XIV, had achieved, parliament would be able to put a stop to it. For the majority of the kingdom, they were happy to see parliament put William and Mary on the throne. Both protestants, they weren’t afraid that they were going to push outside religious views on England. They also understood that William was very much okay with not having as much power as the last monarchs had. William, coming from the Netherlands, was used to the amount of power parliament was going to give to him and accepted the Bill of Rights. Having an understanding protestant king not trying to overbearingly push his own ideas over a state that didn’t want them was a fantastic turn from the old king. You see the failure with James and the success with William with the acceptance of the new power of parliament. James still battled parliament on who should have more power when William just accepted the inevitable and understood where the monarch stood now.

  24. King James II, through James’ Issuance of Toleration, endeavored to solve the questions left behind during Charles II’s rule by re-establishing and solidifying the power/ sovereignty of the Monarch. More specifically, he attempted to exercise his rule without the approval of Parliament by enacting policies for widespread tolerance. To do this, James II executed a commission to erect the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, abolish the need for an Englishmen to swear oath to the English Church, and assuming the power to suspend and execute laws, all without the approval of Parliament. However, the Bill of Rights enacted by William and Mary went in direct opposition of James II’s Monarch-Centrist actions, in favor of cementing the powers and rights of Parliament. The Bill of Rights held that the suspension of laws, the creation of courts like the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and other actions by James were illegal without the approval of Parliament. The difference between the two legal decisions displayed the political revolution from James hardline use of Divine Right and the Monarchs sovereignty to the great allowance of power to Parliament. The Monarch was again adherent to the laws of England and Parliament held sway.

    Under James’ Issuance of Toleration, James attempted to devalue the Anglican Church as a unifying force of England, in order to allow for the tolerance of fellow Catholics as well as to protect himself, protecting religious freedom by retaining religious power as the head of the Anglican Church. James put a great divide between himself and Parliament, which was clearly anti-toleration to him. William and Mary’s Tolerance Act, in contrast, placed the power back into the hands of Parliament, which repealed much of James’ policies. The Tolerance Act re-established the need to make oath to the Anglican Church, but allowed worship of different sects in their own private congregations (this did not include Catholics). Religious tensions only rose, as the Issuance of Toleration was more lenient and protections previously had by these non-conformists, especially Catholics, were stripped away.

    Just from the literary sources given, a variety of historical views of James II, William III, and the Glorious Revolution itself can be gleaned. King James II by all accounts given was a truly Catholic king, however what does differ in perspective is the extent and sincerity of his tolerance. From the selection from T.B. Macaulay, History of England from the Accession of James II (1848), Macaulay holds that James was not tolerant, but instead was just prejudice towards Protestants. In Declaration of Indulgence, T.B. Howell espoused James’ tolerance, citing his suspension of penal laws and having to take sacrament. As for the Glorious Revolution itself, according to John Miller’s James II: a Study of Kingship, James viewed the prospect of Protestant revolt as more of an inevitability and took precautions to protect his rule from these republicans, such as placing Catholic officers into his army out of fear his Protestant Generals would defect to the revolutionaries. The written work puts forth that James’ distrust of his Protestant subjects put in a even greater divide between him and the greater English population. It was this, James’ paranoia and “tolerance” which protestants felt was actually prejudice against them and pushed any allies he had in the wider English people away and towards revolt. He was essentially alone, whilst William accrued support from these dissenting parties and the backing of Parliament.

  25. The introduction of the Bill of Rights into English politics resembled that of a revolution such that it further placed limitations on the king’s power by stripping the monarch of having the power to dismiss and enforce laws, lending funds, and maintaining an army during times of peace. Parliament gained many new powers as a result of this document such as the right to free speech in debate, assemble frequently, bear arms, no inhumane punishments, and the right to appeal the king’s decisions. In terms of continuity, the Toleration Act remained the same because it continued to let nonconformists practice their faith, which was seen during the reign of James, however, they no longer had to keep their doors open when they assembled. James’ Issuance of Toleration potentially provided a resolution to the prblem of sovereignty during the reign of Charles ll, however, the issue continued to be a question thay swung like a pendulum between the King and Parliament. Charles was seen as the soverign power when he often took ecclesiastical matters into his own hands where he attempted to assert his power over Parliament and put laws in place that recognized his superiority over the institution. Religion continued to have an impact on whether the monarch tolerated opposing forms of Christianity. James resorted to preaching toleration because he realized it was the only way to keep the English people happy and the country in order.

    The historical views of the Glorious Revolution vary according to whose perspective it’s from. One’s view of the revolution is dependent on the era and writer of the specific text. One text portrays James in a very different light than the other. For example, in the first text, James ll is depicted as a rational ruler who played a key role in preaching toleration in England, which helped contribute to making the people of England content. On the other hand, the second text portrays James as an authoritarian monarch who exercised the power of Divine Right who forcefully allowed Protestants to exercise there religion, which he hated because he was a Catholic. During this era, William and his Glorious Revolution were viewed as victorious and supported by the majority of the English people. People backed him becaused they had faith that he would bring back a Protestant way of thought to Parliament and the monarchy. This would allow him to be a more favorable ruler and for Parliament to be more “hands on” in a sense that they would get closer with the English people so that they could be better represented.

  26. Following the Civil Wars in England, there were many questions regarding sovereignty in England. The Bill of Rights seemed to establish a shift in the power of the King, as the Bill of Rights limits the power of the King in England. Furthermore, in the Bill of Rights, Parliament gains more power in the way of influencing the King’s decisions as a lot of the King’s actions cannot be carried through without Parliamentary consent or approval. Parliament gained a plethora of power and influence through this document, such as the ability to determine if the Crown can levy funds, determine if the King can have a standing army in times of peace, and have free elections. The Bill of Rights seemed to put a check on the King’s power and limit the ability of a monarchy to form. These legal decisions represent a revolution in English politics because Parliament, as a body, was seeking limitations on the power of the King more than ever before. These legal decisions represent a continuity in English politics because toleration was extended to nonconformists during the reign of James.

    The Toleration Act came about in a time of a great division in religious beliefs in England. During the reign of James, toleration was extended to nonconformists who wished to practice their religious beliefs. However, these nonconformists were unable to practice in their own locations, behind closed doors. Prior to the Reformation, a King’s subjects were expected to remain faithful to the religious beliefs of the King. The issuing of the Toleration Act showed that constitutional concerns regarding the King’s ability to determine the religious beliefs of their subjects. Many were beginning to believe that the King did not have any place in the religious affairs of their subjects and could not legally meddle with this. The Toleration Act established that nonconformists could now practice their religious beliefs in their own locations. Parliament, however, said that nonconformists included everyone but Catholics and those who rejected the trinity.

    The Glorious Revolution has been seen and analyzed in a multitude of ways by different historians, with many having differing views about revolution itself. The first historian believed that James was a very revolutionary leader for his time, issuing tolerance in a way that was never seen before. The second historian viewed James as someone who would have rather extended toleration to nonconformists than attempt to make England Catholic again. This historian would likely believe that James realized he could not fight for unity in religion for the Crown and extended toleration hesitantly. Being openly Catholic, it is understandable that James would hesitantly grant toleration to his subjects that practice other faiths. The third historian paints James as a minimally tolerant ruler. In comparison to the other historian’s viewpoints, this historian believes James was the least tolerant. William succeeded because he was viewed as a revolutionary leader and the success of the Glorious Revolution. William was believed to have the desire to bring Protestant ways of thinking to the Crown and limit Catholic influence in this realm. People were shying away from the thought of having a ruler that would integrate Catholic thought into politics.

  27. James II legal decision directly address the many questions regarding rule of law, role of law, sovereignty, and use of religion. James II issued the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 in which he used his ability to dispense power to negate the effect of laws that punished Catholics and Protestant dissenters. This action alienated James II from the Church of England and its bishops along with those in Parliament. James II toleration of dissent in the eyes of Parliament was not agreeable to them. James also further tried to answer these questions by bypassing Parliament in other ways. He also issued the toleration act as James II was a Catholic in a Protestant system and wanted more toleration in the kingdom. He made it no longer required to receive an oath from the Anglican Church. These severely hurt James II reputation and it made it worse that he also did this without Parliament. James II was attempting to assert the King as the key power source in the sovereignty. He also gave the power to judge on ecclesiastical issues to the king further placing the crown at the forefront of law and order. Parliament attempts to regain power by presenting the Bill of Rights to William and Mary. This made it illegal to make decisions on law without Parliament and therefore shifting the power back to Parliament. While the power was being shifted between Parliament and the King, there is continuity in that the King is still targeted as the person with the most power or right to power even as Parliament might take some of that actual power away.
    James issuance of toleration is mostly focused on his personal beliefs of toleration as he himself is not in the religious majority. On the constitutional side the issuance of toleration also gave the power of how to decide on ecclesiastical issues to the king. The toleration act takes a different position as it was not written by a monarch but prepared by Parliament for William and Mary. The toleration act in combination with the Bill of Rights to shift the power away from the King and give some powers back to Parliament. Also the toleration act itself focused less on the power struggle and more so with the application of religious law. The act was concerned with what laws applied to who and what punishments would be for those offences. It allowed nonconformists to practice but with restrictions as well.
    The historical view of James II has changed overtime. Lord James Macauley, a Whig, presented James II as a tyrant and that he was not a tolerant ruler but instead an absolutist. This was generally the point of view by Whigs who viewed James II as a tyrant due to his skirting of Parliaments powers. James II was a Catholic king and ruler of a Protestant country and church and in trying to bring tolerance to his kingdom upset the balance of powers. These actions brought his original unfavorable opinion but later as Catholic apologists began to write about James II he was view under much more favorable light. Pincus brings about a unique opinion on James II that he was simply trying to follow in the footsteps of King Louis XIV due to his attempts to catholicize England and create a more centralized bureaucratic system. The Glorious Revolution is seen positively by Protestants and more tolerant people while it is viewed poorly by Catholics.

Leave a Reply