How significant a threat were religious dissenters to the authority of Charles II and James
II in the years 1660-88?
To state that religious dissenters were a significant threat to the authority of Charles II and James II
in the years 1660-88 is an accurate statement due to the tension between the monarchy and
parliament that they attributed, thereby raising the threat they posed. During this time period,
religious dissenters were defined as anyone who did not conform to the Church of England; this
included Quakers, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Whilst their survival can be credited to the
dedication and commitment dissenters had to their faith, it can be argued that the mistakes made
by their enemies that led to a growing sympathy for dissenters were crucial in aiding their survival,
thus increasing the threat they posed. Therefore, religious dissenters proved to be a highly
significant threat to the monarchy’s authority due to the mistakes and actions the government made
surrounding the issue of dissent.
Paragraph 1- Actions of sympathisers & reluctant conformists (??????):
Point: However, the actions of sympathisers among the wealthy and influential individuals of the
country can also explain why religious dissenters were a threat to Charles II and James II’s authority
were.
- There were many among the wealthy and learned classes (aldermen, JPs, lawyers, etc) who
were responsible for enforcing laws against dissenters, but who either shared views or were
reluctant conformists. These people helped individual cases in a great many cases, although
did not speak out against persecution as a whole. Wealthy/ learned classes= hold power in
society= them supporting dissenters was dangerous due to the influence they had= a threat
to monarchy’s authority.
- There were many moderates and latitudinarians within the Church who argued that
persecution was counter-productive, such as John Wilkins. Indeed, many churchmen were
only just on the right side of conformity: John Tillotson, who became AB of Canterbury in
1691, had thought very hard before conforming in 1664. Those who were high up in the
church were reluctant to persecute dissenters= signified some threat as they held power in
religion. However, they were reluctant to speak out against persecution as a whole, showing
how the actions of sympathisers did not contribute much to the threat of dissent.
- Bill speck: Anglicans experienced a change of heart at the same time for different reasons;
nightmares of either a papist or Puritan govt had become real and were joined together in
an alliance against Anglicanism. Only alternative was to accept dissenters as allies against
Catholics= had to offer them some toleration. Anglicans in support of dissenters too.
However, this change of heart was due to the fear of Catholicism, which was increased by
mainly James II’s policies.
Paragraph 2- Commitment of dissenters:
Point: to argue that the commitment of dissenters to their disruptive faiths are why they posed a
significant threat to the monarchy’s authority is accurate to an extent.
- There was not only a growing informal network of preachers, but a formal academy founded
by Richard Frankland in 1669. By 1689 there were over a 100 new dissenting pastors.
- Both the creation of academies, the building of new meeting houses and the establishment
of licenses outside the national Church enabled new strength within dissenting Churches and
lay foundations for future developments. Licenses were not recalled until 1675 and by this
II in the years 1660-88?
To state that religious dissenters were a significant threat to the authority of Charles II and James II
in the years 1660-88 is an accurate statement due to the tension between the monarchy and
parliament that they attributed, thereby raising the threat they posed. During this time period,
religious dissenters were defined as anyone who did not conform to the Church of England; this
included Quakers, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Whilst their survival can be credited to the
dedication and commitment dissenters had to their faith, it can be argued that the mistakes made
by their enemies that led to a growing sympathy for dissenters were crucial in aiding their survival,
thus increasing the threat they posed. Therefore, religious dissenters proved to be a highly
significant threat to the monarchy’s authority due to the mistakes and actions the government made
surrounding the issue of dissent.
Paragraph 1- Actions of sympathisers & reluctant conformists (??????):
Point: However, the actions of sympathisers among the wealthy and influential individuals of the
country can also explain why religious dissenters were a threat to Charles II and James II’s authority
were.
- There were many among the wealthy and learned classes (aldermen, JPs, lawyers, etc) who
were responsible for enforcing laws against dissenters, but who either shared views or were
reluctant conformists. These people helped individual cases in a great many cases, although
did not speak out against persecution as a whole. Wealthy/ learned classes= hold power in
society= them supporting dissenters was dangerous due to the influence they had= a threat
to monarchy’s authority.
- There were many moderates and latitudinarians within the Church who argued that
persecution was counter-productive, such as John Wilkins. Indeed, many churchmen were
only just on the right side of conformity: John Tillotson, who became AB of Canterbury in
1691, had thought very hard before conforming in 1664. Those who were high up in the
church were reluctant to persecute dissenters= signified some threat as they held power in
religion. However, they were reluctant to speak out against persecution as a whole, showing
how the actions of sympathisers did not contribute much to the threat of dissent.
- Bill speck: Anglicans experienced a change of heart at the same time for different reasons;
nightmares of either a papist or Puritan govt had become real and were joined together in
an alliance against Anglicanism. Only alternative was to accept dissenters as allies against
Catholics= had to offer them some toleration. Anglicans in support of dissenters too.
However, this change of heart was due to the fear of Catholicism, which was increased by
mainly James II’s policies.
Paragraph 2- Commitment of dissenters:
Point: to argue that the commitment of dissenters to their disruptive faiths are why they posed a
significant threat to the monarchy’s authority is accurate to an extent.
- There was not only a growing informal network of preachers, but a formal academy founded
by Richard Frankland in 1669. By 1689 there were over a 100 new dissenting pastors.
- Both the creation of academies, the building of new meeting houses and the establishment
of licenses outside the national Church enabled new strength within dissenting Churches and
lay foundations for future developments. Licenses were not recalled until 1675 and by this
