https://g.co/gemini/share/fb1222689708

A Deep Analysis of the English Act of Toleration (1689)

1. Introduction: The Act of Toleration (1689) – A Landmark in English History

The Act of Toleration, formally titled "An Act for Exempting their Majestyes Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certaine Lawes" ¹, received royal assent on May 24, 1689.² This legislation stands as a pivotal moment in the trajectory of English religious and political history. It granted a circumscribed freedom of worship to certain Protestant Nonconformists, thereby formally, though cautiously, acknowledging a degree of religious diversity within the realm. The Act was a direct and significant legislative outcome of the seismic political shifts of the Glorious Revolution (1688-1689) ¹ and represented a notable, albeit incomplete, departure from the long-standing, often brutally enforced, policy of religious uniformity under the aegis of the Church of England. Its passage signaled an implicit abandonment of the ideal of a "comprehensive" Church of England, one that could incorporate all English Protestants within its fold. Instead, it suggested that future societal stability might better be achieved through a carefully managed toleration of certain religious divisions among Protestants, rather than through their complete suppression or forced assimilation.²

The Act of Toleration of 1689, while ostensibly a measure of religious clemency, was fundamentally a pragmatic political compromise, meticulously crafted to secure the nascent Williamite regime and to unify disparate Protestant interests in its support. Nevertheless, it inadvertently laid foundational, though narrowly defined, groundwork for the eventual emergence of religious pluralism in England. The Act's inherent limitations and its deliberate exclusions, most notably concerning Roman Catholics and non-Trinitarian Protestants, are profoundly revelatory of the deep-seated religious and political anxieties that permeated the era. These exclusions underscore that "toleration," as conceived in late 17th-century England, was not an inherent right to religious freedom but rather a conditional grant of permission, dispensed by the state and subject to its overarching interests.

The very title of the Act, "An Act for Exempting...from...Penalties" ¹, offers a subtle but crucial indication of its conceptual underpinnings. It frames toleration not as a positive conferral of rights, but as a negative liberty – a freedom from punishment for proscribed religious practices, rather than a freedom to fully practice, propagate, and participate on an equal footing. This phrasing implies that the default legal status for Dissenters was one of liability to penal laws; the Act did not establish a new, affirmative "right" to worship but rather carved out specific exemptions from existing punitive measures for particular groups who met stringent conditions. This legislative approach aligns closely with what the philosopher Rainer Forst has termed the "permission conception" of toleration.⁴ According to this model, an established authority – in this case, the English Parliament and Monarchy – grants a qualified permission to a minority (or minorities) to live according to their beliefs, but only on the condition that the minority accepts the dominant position of the authority and remains within prescribed limits. This form of toleration, often granted for pragmatic reasons such as maintaining social order or securing political support, inherently reinforces the hierarchical relationship between the tolerating authority and the tolerated group. The 1689 Act was not, therefore, a move towards religious equality but a strategic measure to manage dissent in a way that buttressed the stability and authority of the post-Revolution state.

Furthermore, the Act of Toleration can be interpreted as a strategic component in a broader effort to redefine "Englishness" along explicitly Protestant, and specifically anti-Catholic, lines. This redefinition was particularly urgent in the immediate aftermath of the ousting of a Catholic monarch, James II, and amidst widespread fears of Catholic influence both domestically and internationally, particularly from France.³ The Act's deliberate and unequivocal exclusion of Roman Catholics from its benefits ¹ was not an incidental detail but a central pillar of its design. Concurrently, the Bill of Rights of 1689, another cornerstone of the Revolution Settlement, explicitly forbade any Roman Catholic from ascending to the English throne.³ Taken together, this legislative package worked synergistically to construct and consolidate a Protestant state identity. By extending a measure of toleration to a range of Protestant Dissenters while simultaneously and vehemently excluding Catholics, the Act aimed to forge a more united Protestant bloc. This consolidation was perceived as essential for the survival and legitimacy of the new regime under William and Mary, providing a common rallying point against perceived internal and external Catholic threats.

2. The Crucible of Revolution: England on the Eve of Toleration

The passage of the Act of Toleration cannot be understood in isolation; it was forged in the crucible of England's turbulent 17th century, a period characterized by profound and often violent religious and political strife. The long shadow of these conflicts, particularly the English Civil Wars and the religious policies of the later Stuart monarchs, created the conditions that made such an act both necessary and possible.

The Legacy of Religious Strife

The 17th century had been a battleground for competing religious and political ideologies. The English Civil Wars (1642-1651) saw the nation torn apart, with religious differences between supporters of the monarchy and Parliamentarians, including various Puritan factions, playing a central role.5 The memory of this devastating conflict, followed by the Interregnum during which Protestant Dissenters briefly held power 8, deeply influenced subsequent attitudes towards religious diversity and the extent of state control over religious practice.

The Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II in 1660 marked a sharp return to Anglican supremacy. A series of punitive laws, collectively known as the Clarendon Code (though not explicitly named, this is the relevant historical context), were enacted to enforce conformity to the Church of England and to suppress all forms of Dissent. Key among these were the Corporation Act of 1661, which restricted municipal offices to those who took Anglican communion, and the Test Acts of 1673 and 1678, which extended similar requirements to all civil and military officeholders, effectively barring most Protestant Nonconformists and all Roman Catholics from public life.² These measures created a climate of persecution and simmering resentment among those outside the established Church.

Religious Tensions under Charles II and James II

Throughout the reign of Charles II, relations between the established Anglican Church, Protestant Dissenters, and the small but influential Roman Catholic minority remained fraught with tension.3 This tension escalated dramatically with the accession of his brother, James II, in 1685. James II was an avowed Roman Catholic, and his policies were overtly aimed at improving the legal and political standing of his co-religionists.3 He sought to appoint Catholics to key positions in the army, government, and universities, and supported freedom of worship for them.3

In 1687, and again in 1688, James II issued Declarations of Indulgence. These royal decrees suspended the penal laws against both Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, granting a measure of religious freedom by royal prerogative.³ While ostensibly a move towards toleration, the Declarations were met with widespread suspicion and hostility, not only from the Anglican establishment but also from many Protestant Dissenters. The primary objection was not necessarily to toleration itself, but to the method by which it was granted. James II's reliance on the royal dispensing power was seen as an unconstitutional overreach, a move to establish absolute monarchy and to circumvent the authority of Parliament.² Many feared that this was a tactical maneuver designed primarily to benefit Catholics and ultimately to re-establish Catholicism as the dominant religion in England.

The birth of James II's son, James Francis Edward Stuart, in June 1688, and the announcement that he would be raised Catholic, acted as a critical catalyst.³ Until this point, many had tolerated James II's rule, anticipating that the throne would eventually pass to his Protestant daughter, Mary. The birth of a Catholic heir, however, raised the alarming prospect of a permanent Catholic dynasty in England, intensifying fears among the predominantly Protestant political nation.³

The attempts by James II to achieve religious toleration through royal prerogative, particularly his Declarations of Indulgence, paradoxically contributed to the eventual passage of a parliamentary Act of Toleration. His methods, perceived as arbitrary and an assault on the established legal and political order, thoroughly discredited the notion of royal overreach in matters of religion.² This created a significant backlash, not solely against the potential resurgence of Catholicism, but against the monarchical means employed to promote it. Consequently, when William and Mary ascended the throne, they did so under terms that explicitly acknowledged greater parliamentary authority.³ The Act of Toleration of 1689, being an Act of Parliament, thus carried a constitutional legitimacy that James II's declarations had conspicuously lacked. The fear of arbitrary royal power in religious affairs, ironically stoked by James II's actions, created an environment in which Parliament could assert its own authority to define the boundaries of religious freedom, albeit in a selective and limited manner.

The Glorious Revolution (1688-89) as the Immediate Catalyst

The culmination of these religious and political anxieties was the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689. In response to James II's policies and the birth of his son, a coalition of influential Whig and Tory leaders extended an invitation to William of Orange, the Dutch Protestant Stadtholder who was married to James II's eldest Protestant daughter, Mary, to intervene militarily.3 William landed in England with an army in November 1688, leading to James II's flight to France.

The Revolution involved the formal overthrow of James II and the joint ascension of William and Mary to the English throne, following their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights, which was later enacted as the Bill of Rights (1689).³ The motives behind the Revolution were a complex tapestry of political and religious concerns, primarily centered on the desire to preserve Protestantism and parliamentary governance against perceived threats of Catholic absolutism.³ The Revolution Settlement, which included the Bill of Rights and the Act of Toleration, fundamentally reshaped the English constitution. It significantly limited monarchical power, asserted parliamentary supremacy in matters of law and finance, and crucially, forbade any Roman Catholic, or anyone married to a Catholic, from occupying the throne.² The Act of Toleration was an integral component of this broader settlement, designed to stabilize the new regime by addressing one of the key sources of internal division.² Many historians concur that the Glorious Revolution was a watershed event, pivotal in transforming England from a near-absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, where the monarch governed in conjunction with Parliament.³

The narrative of the "Bloodless Revolution," as it came to be known in England ³, was itself a carefully constructed portrayal, particularly favored by Whig historians. The Act of Toleration played a crucial role in substantiating this narrative. By granting concessions to and thereby pacifying a significant segment of the Protestant population – the Dissenters – the Act helped to minimize the potential for internal armed conflict within England. This domestic tranquility was vital for William III to project an image of a monarch widely accepted by his English subjects, lending credence to the "bloodless" characterization of his accession and masking the more violent realities of the Revolution as it unfolded in Ireland and Scotland.³ The Act, by contributing to peace in England, helped legitimize William's rule and the revolutionary settlement itself.

3. Dissecting the Act of Toleration (1689): Provisions, Scope, and Intent

The Act of Toleration of 1689, officially titled "An Act for Exempting their Majestyes Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certaine Lawes" ¹, was a carefully worded piece of legislation that reflected the complex compromises of the post-Revolution era. Its provisions defined who would benefit, the conditions they had to meet, and, significantly, who would remain excluded.

Formal Title and Stated Purpose

The full title itself reveals the Act's limited scope: it was about exempting certain subjects from penalties, not about granting universal religious freedom or repealing the laws that established Anglican supremacy. The preamble and the general thrust of the Act indicated a clear political purpose. It was hoped that providing "some ease to scrupulous consciences in the exercise of religion may be an effectual means to unite their Majesties' Protestant subjects in interest and affection".7 This explicit linkage of religious concession to political unity and loyalty to the new monarchs, William and Mary, underscores the pragmatic and strategic intent behind the legislation.

Beneficiaries: Protestant Dissenters

The primary beneficiaries of the Act were Trinitarian Protestant Nonconformists.1 These included groups such as Baptists, Congregationalists (or Independents), and English Presbyterians, who had long dissented from the doctrines and practices of the Church of England and had, as a consequence, suffered under various penal laws for more than a century.2 The term "Dissenters" broadly encompassed those Protestants who had separated from the established Church. The late 17th century saw a variety of such groups, including Anabaptists, Barrowists, Brownists, Quakers, and others, though the Act's practical application was most clearly directed towards the more established Trinitarian denominations.8

Conditions and Requirements for Toleration

The freedoms granted by the Act were not unconditional. Dissenters wishing to benefit from its provisions had to meet several specific requirements:

Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy: Individuals were required to take the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary and supremacy, acknowledging the monarch as the supreme governor of the realm in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal.¹
Declaration against Transubstantiation: A declaration rejecting the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was mandatory.⁶ This served as a clear test to distinguish Protestant Dissenters from Catholics.
Subscription to Articles of Religion: Dissenting ministers, and in some cases teachers, were required to subscribe to certain of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England. Specifically, they had to subscribe to thirty-six of the articles, excluding those relating to Church government and ceremonies, thereby affirming their adherence to core Trinitarian Protestant orthodoxy.¹¹ Quakers were offered an alternative declaration due to their objection to oath-taking.
Registration of Meeting Houses: Dissenting congregations were permitted to worship publicly, but their meeting houses had to be registered with a bishop, archdeacon, or at the county quarter sessions.⁶ Doors of such meeting houses were to remain unlocked during services.
Prohibition of Private Worship: Worship in private homes, if five or more persons beyond the family were present, remained forbidden.⁶ This provision suggests a desire by the state to ensure that Dissenting worship occurred in public, registered locations, rather than in potentially clandestine settings.
Teachers and Preachers: Dissenters were allowed their own teachers and preachers, provided these individuals met the relevant requirements regarding oaths and subscription to the Articles.²

The requirement for Dissenters to register their meeting houses and the concurrent prohibition of worship in private homes (for larger groups) indicate a clear intention on the part of the state to maintain a degree of oversight and control over Dissenting religious practices. While the Act granted freedom from penalties, these conditions imply that toleration was coupled with a system of monitoring. It was not simply about allowing freedom of worship, but about ensuring this worship occurred in a manner that was visible, regulated, and deemed acceptable by the state. This reinforces the understanding of the Act as a form of "permission" – freedom granted within carefully defined boundaries and subject to ongoing state supervision, rather than an unfettered liberty.

Exclusions and Limitations

The Act of Toleration was as notable for its exclusions and limitations as for the freedoms it granted:

Roman Catholics: Were explicitly and unequivocally excluded from any benefits under the Act.¹ Anti-Catholicism was a foundational element of the Glorious Revolution and the ensuing settlement.
Non-Trinitarians (Unitarians): Those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, such as Unitarians (sometimes then referred to as Socinians), were also excluded.² The requirement for ministers to subscribe to the Trinitarian articles of the Church of England effectively barred them.¹⁴ Full legal toleration for Unitarians would not come until the Unitarians Relief Act of 1813.⁶
Jews and Atheists: The Act did not extend to Jews or atheists, who remained outside its protective scope.⁶
Anglicans Supporting the Stuart Monarchy (Nonjurors): A politically significant exclusion was that of Anglicans who refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary, maintaining their loyalty to the deposed James II (the Nonjurors).¹ Their exclusion, despite their Protestant and Trinitarian beliefs, starkly illustrates that political loyalty to the new regime was a more critical criterion for inclusion within the Act's framework than purely theological considerations. This underscores the Act's primary function as an instrument for consolidating the Williamite state.
Continued Civil Disabilities: Critically, the Act of Toleration did not repeal the Corporation Act (1661) or the Test Acts (1673, 1678).² This meant that Protestant Dissenters, even those who qualified under the Toleration Act, remained barred from holding political office, serving in the military, or attending universities (Oxford and Cambridge) unless they were willing to take communion according to the rites of the Church of England. This significant limitation led directly to the controversial practice of "occasional conformity".²
Financial Burdens: Dissenters continued to be legally obligated to pay tithes for the support of the Anglican Church, even as they voluntarily funded their own churches and ministers.¹ This was a persistent source of grievance.

The following table provides a consolidated overview of the key provisions of the Act of Toleration:

Table 1: Key Provisions of the Act of Toleration (1689)

Aspect	Details
Formal Title	"An Act for Exempting their Majestyes Protestant Subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the Penalties of certaine Lawes" ¹
Beneficiaries	Trinitarian Protestant Dissenters (e.g., Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers with alternative declaration) ²
Key Requirements	- Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy ¹ <br> - Declaration against Transubstantiation ⁶ <br> - Subscription to specified Thirty-Nine Articles (for ministers/teachers) ¹¹ <br> - Registration of meeting houses ⁶
Freedoms Granted	- Exemption from penalties for not attending Church of England services. <br> - Freedom to worship in registered meeting houses with own ministers/teachers.²
Excluded Groups	- Roman Catholics ¹ <br> - Non-Trinitarians (e.g., Unitarians) ² <br> - Jews ⁶ <br> - Atheists ⁶ <br> - Nonjuring Anglicans (those refusing allegiance to William & Mary) ¹
Remaining Disabilities	- Exclusion from public office, military commissions, and universities (Test and Corporation Acts remained in force) ² <br> - Obligation to pay tithes to the Church of England ¹

This structured summary highlights the Act's carefully calibrated balance of concession and control, central to understanding its character as a pragmatic political instrument rather than a comprehensive charter of religious liberty.

4. Motivations Behind the Act: A Tapestry of Pragmatism, Politics, and Principle

The enactment of the Act of Toleration in 1689 was driven by a complex interplay of motivations, with political pragmatism and the urgent need for state security being paramount. While philosophical ideals of toleration were present in the intellectual climate of the time, the Act itself was largely a product of immediate political necessities and strategic calculations by the new regime of William and Mary.

Political Imperatives

The foremost motivation was the consolidation of the Williamite regime following the Glorious Revolution.11 William III, having arrived as an invader and ascended to a contested throne, faced the immediate challenge of establishing legitimacy and securing widespread support. To achieve this, he needed to unite the various Protestant factions within England. Both the Whig and Tory parties, which had coalesced to support the Revolution, had made promises to Protestant Dissenters that a measure of toleration would be forthcoming if James II was overthrown.6 Fulfilling this promise was crucial for maintaining the allegiance of Dissenters, who formed a significant and often politically active segment of the population.

National unity and stability were inextricably linked to the security of the new monarchy. The Act’s stated aim, "to unite their Majesties Protestant subjects in interest and affection" ⁷, directly reflected this concern. Decades of religious strife had demonstrated the destabilizing potential of religious persecution. Granting toleration to Protestant Dissenters was seen as a means to achieve domestic peace and cohesion, particularly vital as England was engaged in war in Ireland to suppress Jacobite resistance and faced the ongoing threat of French intervention in support of James II.¹¹

A critical aspect of this political strategy was the desire to forge a united Protestant front against the perceived menace of Roman Catholicism. The Glorious Revolution had been fueled by anti-Catholic sentiment, and the fear of a Catholic monarch or a Catholic continental power like France undermining English Protestantism was pervasive.³ The Act of Toleration, by extending freedoms to most Protestant groups while pointedly excluding Roman Catholics, served to solidify this Protestant alliance.¹¹ This exclusion was not merely a byproduct of the Act but a central element of its political logic, reinforcing the Protestant character of the post-Revolution state.

Pragmatic Considerations

Beyond the immediate political needs of the new regime, pragmatic considerations also played a significant role. Decades of attempting to enforce strict religious uniformity through punitive measures had proven largely ineffective and had often led to social disruption and economic hardship. Continued widespread persecution of substantial Protestant minorities was increasingly viewed as unworkable and counterproductive.

While not explicitly highlighted in the provided materials as a primary driver for this specific Act in England, the economic contributions of Dissenters were a background factor in broader discussions of toleration. Dissenting communities were often heavily involved in trade, manufacturing, and commerce.¹⁵ A more stable and less persecuted Dissenting population could contribute more effectively to the nation's economic strength, a factor of increasing importance in an era of commercial and colonial expansion.

The Act also represented a compromise designed to avert more radical changes to the religious establishment. William III had initially favored a more comprehensive approach, including the removal of the sacramental tests that barred Dissenters from public office. However, this faced strong opposition from Tory and High Church Anglican factions, who were wary of diminishing the privileges of the Church of England.¹³ The Toleration Act, as passed, was therefore a more limited measure, a political bargain that granted freedom of worship but maintained Anglican dominance in the civil sphere. It can be seen as a "reactionary attempt to maintain order and preserve the Anglican church" from more far-reaching alterations ¹³, and was described as "just barely broad enough in scope to achieve [William's] political purposes".¹¹

The Act's pragmatism can be understood as a clear exercise in "statecraft," where religious policy was explicitly wielded as an instrument for political consolidation and national security. The primary drivers were political stability, the unification of Protestant support for William and Mary, and the effective countering of Catholic threats.¹¹ Religious toleration, in this context, was not primarily an end in itself, driven by abstract theological or rights-based arguments, but rather a means to achieve pressing state objectives. The architects of the Act appear to have viewed religious groups primarily through the lens of their potential to either bolster or destabilize the state. Consequently, toleration was extended to those Protestant Dissenters whose loyalty could be secured and whose religious practices were deemed broadly acceptable, while those perceived as inherently disloyal (Roman Catholics) or theologically too radical (such as non-Trinitarians) were deliberately excluded. This approach is a salient example of religious policy being subordinated to the dictates of raison d'état.

Philosophical Influences (Limited but Present)

The intellectual currents of the late 17th century included growing arguments for religious toleration based on philosophical principles. Most notably, John Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration, which advocated for a broader toleration grounded in the separation of the civil and religious spheres, was published in the same year as the Act, 1689.1 Locke argued that the magistrate's power was confined to civil interests and should not extend to the salvation of souls.

While Locke's ideas were undoubtedly influential in intellectual circles and would later be powerfully invoked by Dissenters in their campaigns for greater rights ¹⁷, the Act of Toleration itself was more a product of political negotiation and compromise than a direct legislative enactment of Lockean philosophy.¹¹ The Act's numerous exclusions and limitations, particularly its denial of civil equality to Dissenters and its complete exclusion of Catholics (a stance Locke himself shared regarding Catholics, whom he viewed as owing allegiance to a foreign power), demonstrate its divergence from a purely principled application of tolerationist ideals. As one historical analysis suggests, the Act was a "fortuitous compromise and a fudge rather than the final triumph of a tolerationist ideal".¹⁸

The "Permission Conception" of Toleration

The Act of Toleration aligns closely with what has been termed the "permission conception" of toleration.4 In this model, toleration is not an inherent right of individuals or groups but a qualified grant bestowed by a superior authority – in this instance, the state, represented by the Crown and Parliament. This authority permits a dissenting minority to exist and practice their beliefs, but only under specific conditions and with the implicit understanding that the minority accepts the dominant position of the established order. The Act of 1689 fits this framework precisely: Protestant Dissenters were permitted to worship outside the Church of England, but they had to register their meeting houses, take oaths, and subscribe to certain doctrines. Furthermore, the Anglican Church remained the established national church, and Dissenters continued to face significant civil disabilities. This hierarchical relationship, where toleration is a revocable concession rather than an inalienable right, was characteristic of many early modern approaches to religious diversity. As Mirabeau would later observe in 1789, "the authority which tolerates might also not tolerate," underscoring the precarious and conditional nature of such grants.19 Goethe's remark that "To tolerate means to insult" 4 captures the inherent power imbalance and lack of genuine equality embedded in this conception.

The careful and deliberate exclusion of Roman Catholics from the Act's provisions, while simultaneously extending a measure of toleration to a wide array of Protestant Dissenters, served a dual purpose. It aimed to create a more unified Protestant political nation, bound together by shared opposition to Catholicism and loyalty to the new Protestant monarchy. However, this strategy simultaneously deepened the sectarian chasm with Catholicism, effectively institutionalizing anti-Catholicism as a principle of the English state. This did not merely manage existing religious dissent; it actively constructed a particular form of national identity built upon Protestant solidarity and the explicit exclusion and suspicion of Catholics. This had profound and long-lasting repercussions for religious relations within Britain and, particularly, in Ireland.

5. Immediate Repercussions and Societal Adjustments

The Act of Toleration, upon its passage, set in motion a series of adjustments within English society, profoundly affecting Protestant Dissenters, the Church of England, and those groups deliberately excluded from its provisions. While it brought relief to many, it also highlighted ongoing tensions and created new dynamics in the religious and political landscape.

Reception by Protestant Dissenters

For Trinitarian Protestant Dissenters, the Act of Toleration was a watershed moment. After decades of persecution and legal constraint, they were now exempted from penalties for not attending Anglican services and were legally permitted to worship publicly in their own meeting houses, with their own ministers and teachers, provided they met the Act's conditions (oaths, registration, etc.).1 This newfound legal breathing space led to a visible growth in Dissenting congregations. Between 1691 and 1710, official records indicate that some 2,536 Dissenting places of worship were licensed across England and Wales, a testament to the Act's immediate impact on facilitating organized Dissent.7

However, this relief was tempered by significant ongoing frustrations. The Act did not grant Dissenters full civil equality. The Test and Corporation Acts remained firmly in place, continuing to bar them from holding political office, military commissions, and from attending the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, unless they were prepared to take communion according to the rites of the Church of England.² Furthermore, Dissenters were still legally obliged to pay tithes for the upkeep of the Anglican Church, an institution from which they conscientiously separated.¹ These enduring disabilities were a constant reminder of their second-class status.

The most notable societal adjustment arising from these continued civil restrictions was the practice of "occasional conformity." To navigate the requirements of the Test and Corporation Acts, some Dissenters would receive Anglican communion just once or as often as legally required to qualify for public office or other civic privileges, while continuing to worship primarily within their own Dissenting congregations.² This practice, born of the Act's incomplete measure of toleration, quickly became a focal point of intense political and religious controversy in the subsequent reign of Queen Anne. It highlighted a fundamental tension within the Toleration Act: it granted a degree of religious freedom for worship but maintained religious tests for full civil and political participation. This created a hybrid, somewhat ambiguous status for Dissenters, leading to protracted debates about sincerity, hypocrisy, and the very nature of religious identity in an increasingly pluralistic society.

The Church of England's Response

The Act of Toleration had profound implications for the Church of England. It effectively signaled the abandonment of the long-cherished ideal of a single, "comprehensive" national church that could encompass all English Protestants.2 The future, it seemed, lay not in enforced uniformity or complete incorporation, but in a reluctant toleration of division among Protestants.

This shift was not universally welcomed within the Anglican establishment. Some clergy and staunch Tory supporters viewed the Act with suspicion or felt it was a humiliating concession to schismatics.¹³ The political context of the Glorious Revolution also created internal strains. The requirement for all clergy to take an oath of allegiance to William and Mary, many of whom had previously sworn allegiance to James II and held strong beliefs in passive obedience, precipitated a crisis of conscience for a significant minority. Their refusal led to their deprivation and the formation of the Nonjuring schism, further dividing the Anglican communion.¹³

There were also palpable fears about the potential for Dissent to grow and flourish under the new legal protections, potentially undermining the authority, influence, and uniformity of the Church of England.¹³ For some, the Act was perceived less as a principled step towards liberty and more as a "reactionary attempt to maintain order and preserve the Anglican church" from further erosion or more radical demands for disestablishment.¹³ The legal sanctioning of Dissent also complicated the Church of England's traditional disciplinary powers, such as the use of excommunication. The Act was seen by some clergy as opening the "floodgates of Protestant dissent," leading to concerns about declining moral standards and the Church's capacity to maintain its role as a spiritual and moral guide for the nation.²¹

The Plight of Excluded Groups

The Act of Toleration drew clear lines of exclusion, and for those groups left outside its protective ambit, life remained precarious:

Roman Catholics: Faced not only continued exclusion but, in some respects, intensified legal discrimination and popular hostility. The Bill of Rights (1689) had already barred Catholics from the throne. The resumption of war with Catholic France in the 1690s fueled anti-Catholic sentiment, and Catholics in England became targets of suspicion and hatred.⁷ Further penal legislation in the 1690s increased their burdens, including requirements for Catholics to pay double the standard rate of land tax by the mid-1690s and new punitive laws in 1699 against those who failed to take anti-Catholic oaths.²⁰
Unitarians, Jews, and Atheists: These groups remained entirely outside the Act's protection and were legally vulnerable to prosecution for heresy, blasphemy, or non-conformity.⁶ Unitarians, for instance, were not formally granted toleration until the Unitarians Relief Act of 1813.⁶

The Rise of Dissenting Academies

A significant and somewhat unintended consequence of the continued exclusion of Dissenters from Oxford and Cambridge was the flourishing of "dissenting academies".2 These institutions were established by Nonconformists primarily to train their ministers but quickly evolved to provide a broader education for the sons of Dissenters who were barred from the ancient universities. These academies became important centers of learning, often offering a more modern and liberal curriculum than the traditional universities. Their programs frequently included subjects like science, modern languages, history, geography, and even business and sociology, alongside theology and classical studies.2 Over twenty such academies had been founded in the period between 1663 and 1688, and their numbers grew significantly after the Toleration Act, with more than thirty additional academies starting between 1690 and 1750.2

The intellectual vitality of these academies was perceived as a threat by some in the Anglican establishment. A bill proposed by Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, which became the Schism Act of 1714, aimed to suppress these dissenting academies by requiring all teachers and schoolkeepers to take an oath of allegiance to the Church of England and obtain a license from a bishop. Had this Act become fully effective, it would have severely curtailed the educational and intellectual contributions of Dissenters. However, its implementation was thwarted by the death of Queen Anne on the very day it was due to come into force, August 1, 1714.² The Act, by legally sanctioning Dissent while simultaneously maintaining barriers to established institutions like universities, inadvertently spurred significant intellectual and educational innovation outside the Anglican mainstream. This contributed to a more diverse and dynamic intellectual landscape in England, a development likely unforeseen by the framers of the 1689 legislation.

6. The Nonjuring Schism: Conscience, Loyalty, and Ecclesiastical Division

The Glorious Revolution and its ensuing religious settlement, including the Act of Toleration, precipitated a significant schism within the Anglican communion itself: the Nonjuring movement. This division arose primarily from the consciences of a segment of the clergy who could not reconcile their previous oaths of allegiance to James II with the demand to swear allegiance to the new monarchs, William and Mary.

Origins and Key Figures

The Nonjuring schism formally began when a number of Anglican clergy, including some of the Church's most senior figures, refused to take the prescribed Oath of Allegiance to William and Mary following the Revolution of 1688-1689.22 This refusal led to their suspension and eventual deprivation from their ecclesiastical offices. Estimates suggest that around 2% of English priests became Nonjurors.22 Among them were nine bishops, most notably William Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and five of the seven bishops whom James II himself had prosecuted in 1688.22 Other prominent English Nonjurors included theologians and scholars such as George Hickes, Thomas Ken (who, while refusing the oath, did not actively oppose the new government), Henry Dodwell, and Jeremy Collier.22

A parallel development occurred in Scotland. Following the 1690 settlement which re-established Presbyterianism as the national Church, Episcopalian clergy who refused to conform to the new Presbyterian order and swear allegiance to William and Mary were ejected from their parishes. Many of these became Nonjurors and formed the core of what would evolve into the Scottish Episcopal Church, maintaining loyalty to the exiled Stuart dynasty.²² Influential figures in Scottish Nonjuring circles included the theologian John Sage and, later, Bishop Thomas Rattray, a key figure in liturgical developments.²⁵

Theological Arguments

The Nonjurors' stance was rooted in deeply held theological convictions:

Divine Right of Kings and Passive Obedience: A central tenet for many Nonjurors was the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which held that monarchs were appointed by God and were not accountable to their subjects or to Parliament. Coupled with this was the doctrine of passive obedience, which taught that subjects had a religious duty to obey their lawful sovereign and could not legitimately resist or depose them, even if the monarch acted tyrannically.⁶ From this perspective, the overthrow of James II was illegitimate.
Inviolability of Oaths: Having sworn an oath of allegiance to James II, Nonjurors believed this oath to be sacred and binding. To swear a new oath to William and Mary while James II was still alive and claiming the throne would, in their view, constitute perjury.²²
Nature of the "True" Church (Ecclesiology): This was a fundamental issue, particularly for the English Nonjurors. They argued that the established Church of England, by accepting bishops appointed by the Williamite regime to replace the deprived Nonjuring bishops, had itself fallen into schism. The Nonjurors saw themselves as the faithful remnant, the true and legitimate continuation of the Church of England, upholding its authentic doctrines and apostolic succession.²⁵ A crucial "church point" was their assertion that the secular state (Parliament) had no rightful authority to intervene in purely ecclesiastical affairs, such as the appointment or deprivation of bishops.²² This claim to spiritual independence from state control became a hallmark of Nonjuring ecclesiology. Scottish Episcopalian Nonjurors, similarly, developed a robust theology of divine-right episcopacy, arguing for the necessity of bishops in apostolic succession for the valid constitution of the Church, in direct opposition to the Presbyterian polity established in Scotland.²⁵
Liturgical "Usages": In the early 18th century, particularly among Scottish Nonjurors and a faction of English Nonjurors (the "Usagers"), there emerged a strong interest in revising liturgical practices to align more closely with what they believed to be the worship of the primitive, early Christian Church. This involved advocating for specific "usages" in the Eucharistic rite, such as the mixed chalice (wine and water), prayers for the dead, an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the elements (epiclesis), and a prayer of oblation. These liturgical debates, while sometimes divisive, reflected a deep engagement with patristic sources and a desire to assert a distinct theological and liturgical identity.²⁵

The Nonjuring schism, born out of a principled resistance to the Revolution Settlement and the perceived Erastianism of the established Church, ironically forced its adherents into a position akin to that of Dissenters. In arguing for the Church's spiritual independence from state control and its right to self-governance, particularly in matters of doctrine and episcopal succession ²², Nonjurors developed ecclesiologies that, in their emphasis on autonomy from secular power, bore some resemblance to the claims made by the very Protestant Dissenters they often theologically opposed. While their theological foundations (divine right, apostolic succession, sacramentalism) were vastly different from those of most Dissenting groups, their practical situation as a religious minority operating outside, and often in defiance of, the state-sanctioned religious establishment led to an ironic convergence in their assertion of the Church's inherent spiritual authority against state encroachment.

Political Stance

The theological convictions of the Nonjurors were inextricably linked to their political stance:

Rejection of the Revolution Settlement: They fundamentally rejected the legitimacy of the Glorious Revolution, the overthrow of James II, and the subsequent accession of William and Mary.²²
Jacobitism: Consequently, many Nonjurors were staunch supporters of the exiled Stuart dynasty, a position known as Jacobitism. This was particularly pronounced among Scottish Episcopalians, who played significant roles in the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745.²² English Nonjurors were generally more circumspect in overt political action but largely maintained Jacobite sympathies and hopes for a Stuart restoration.²⁵

Impact on the Church of England and Religious Discourse

Despite their relatively small numbers, the Nonjurors had a disproportionate impact on the religious and intellectual life of the period:

Schism and Division: Their refusal to conform led to a formal schism. In England, the deprived Nonjuring bishops consecrated new bishops to perpetuate their succession, creating a separate Nonjuring Church that existed alongside, and in opposition to, the established Church of England.²² This represented a significant moral and intellectual challenge to the Williamite religious settlement.
Intellectual and Scholarly Contributions: Many Nonjurors were highly educated and became prolific writers, making significant contributions to theology, history, patristics, and liturgical studies.²⁶ Their historical and antiquarian research was often employed to provide precedents and justifications for their theological and political positions, particularly their understanding of the primitive Church and its governance.²⁷ This crisis-driven scholarship, aimed at legitimizing their claims against the "Revolution Church," spurred considerable intellectual activity and deepened historical and liturgical understanding, even if its initial motivations were polemical.
Influence on the High Church Movement: Nonjuring ideas concerning apostolic succession, episcopal authority, sacramental theology, and liturgical propriety resonated strongly with, and significantly influenced, the broader High Church movement that remained within the established Church of England.²⁵
Critique of "Moderation" and "Religious Modernity": As discussed later, Nonjurors were prominent critics of what they perceived as a decline in religious principle and an embrace of a dangerous "moderation" in post-Revolutionary England. They saw practices like occasional conformity as symptomatic of this trend and articulated a powerful critique of emerging "religious modernity".²⁸
Long-term Liturgical Influence: The liturgical work of the Nonjurors, particularly the development of the Scottish Communion Office which incorporated many of the "Usages," had a lasting legacy. This office significantly influenced the liturgical development of the Episcopal Church in the United States after the American Revolution.²²
Decline of the Movement: The Nonjuring schism gradually diminished over the course of the 18th century. Several factors contributed to this decline: their small numbers, internal divisions (such as the dispute between "Usagers" and "Non-Usagers" over liturgical practices), state suppression (especially in Scotland following the 1745 Jacobite rising), and, crucially, the fading political prospects of a Stuart restoration.²² The death of Prince Charles Edward Stuart ("Bonnie Prince Charlie") in 1788 was a decisive moment, leading most remaining Scottish Episcopalians to transfer their allegiance to the Hanoverian monarch.²² The formal Nonjuring separation in England largely died out by the end of the 18th century.

7. Testing the Boundaries: The Occasional Conformity Controversy (Reign of Queen Anne)

The limitations inherent in the Act of Toleration, particularly its failure to grant civil equality to Protestant Dissenters, directly gave rise to the practice of "occasional conformity." This practice, and the fierce debates it ignited during the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714), revealed the unsettled nature of the 1689 religious settlement and the deep anxieties surrounding religious pluralism, political power, and the identity of the English nation.

The Practice of Occasional Conformity

Occasional conformity referred to the practice whereby Protestant Dissenters would receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the Church of England, typically once a year or as infrequently as legally required, in order to qualify for public office or other civil positions under the terms of the Test Act (1673) and the Corporation Act (1661).28 Having fulfilled this legal requirement, they would then predominantly continue to worship in their own Dissenting chapels or meeting houses. This practice was a direct consequence of the Toleration Act's compromise: it granted Dissenters freedom of worship but maintained the Anglican sacramental test for participation in public life.2

Political and Religious Debates

The Occasional Conformity Controversy became a major political and ecclesiastical battleground throughout Queen Anne's reign, often described as reflecting the intense "rage of party" between the Whigs and Tories.28

Tory and High Church Anglican Opposition: This faction generally viewed occasional conformity with intense disapproval. They saw it as a loophole that undermined the privileged position of the Church of England, allowing individuals who were not genuinely committed to Anglicanism to gain positions of power and influence. They often characterized the practice as hypocritical and sacrilegious.³⁰ For Tories, legislative action against occasional conformity was also a means to strengthen the Anglican Church's political dominance and to weaken the electoral strength of the Whig party, as Dissenters overwhelmingly tended to support the Whigs.³⁰
Whig and Latitudinarian/Low Church Anglican Defense or Tolerance: Conversely, Whigs and more moderate (Latitudinarian or Low Church) Anglicans tended to defend or at least tolerate the practice of occasional conformity. They often argued that it promoted Protestant unity against the common Catholic threat, was a sign of moderation and charity, and was not inconsistent with the spirit of the Toleration Act.²⁸ They feared that attempts to ban it would be divisive, akin to persecution, and could destabilize the Protestant consensus achieved after the Glorious Revolution.³⁰

Arguments Against Occasional Conformity (High Church/Tory/Nonjuror Perspective)

The case against occasional conformity was multifaceted:

Accusations of Hypocrisy and Sacrilege: Opponents frequently charged Dissenters who practiced occasional conformity with insincerity and profaning a sacred rite. Daniel Defoe, in his early, critical phase on this issue, bluntly called it a sin and accused practitioners of "prostituting" their religion and "playing Bo peep with God Almighty".³⁴ The core argument was that Dissenters were feigning Anglicanism for worldly advantage.³⁰
Threat to the Integrity of the Church of England: High Churchmen believed that allowing individuals not genuinely committed to Anglican doctrine and discipline to partake in its communion for secular purposes undermined the Church's spiritual integrity and authority.²⁸
Undermining the Anglican Confessional State: For those who envisioned England as an "Anglican confessional state," where adherence to the established Church was a prerequisite for full citizenship and participation in governance, occasional conformity was seen as a dangerous erosion of this principle.²⁸
Nonjuror Critique of "Moderation": The Nonjurors, already alienated from the post-Revolution settlement, were particularly vocal critics. They viewed occasional conformity as a prime example of a wider "malady of moderation" and a symptom of "religious modernity" that prioritized expediency and compromise over firm religious principle.²⁸ They argued that it threatened a "promiscuity of communion," where individuals moved fluidly between orthodoxy and schism without genuine conviction.²⁸ The Nonjurors, though politically marginalized, exerted significant intellectual influence by framing the debate not merely as a party political issue but as a fundamental question about the nature of the Church and the dangers of religious indifference. Their articulate defense of a "robust Anglican episcopal ecclesiology" ²⁸ elevated the discourse, forcing a deeper engagement with ecclesiological principles.

Arguments For Occasional Conformity (Whig/Latitudinarian/Dissenter Perspective)

Defenders and apologists for occasional conformity also presented a range of arguments:

A Matter of Indifference for "True" Dissenters (Defoe's initial stance): In some of his early pamphlets, Defoe argued that legislation against occasional conformity was largely irrelevant to "true" Dissenters, as they would not engage in such a compromising practice anyway.³⁴ This was a somewhat detached argument that he later modified.
Promoting "Catholic Communion" and Christian Charity: More common among defenders was the argument that occasional conformity could be seen as an expression of "Catholic communion" – a broad Christian charity that extended beyond mere tolerance. It demonstrated a willingness among Dissenters to join in worship with fellow sincere Protestants, thereby fostering unity.²⁸ The Dissenting minister Edmund Calamy, for example, reassured Bishop Gilbert Burnet that the practice demonstrated Dissenters' charitable disposition towards the Church of England.³⁵
Consistency with the Toleration Act: Supporters often contended that attempts to criminalize occasional conformity were an infringement upon the spirit of the Toleration Act and amounted to a form of persecution against loyal Protestant subjects who were otherwise protected in their worship.²⁸
Demonstrating Dissenters' Loyalty: As the debates continued, proponents like Defoe (in his later pamphlets) emphasized the loyalty of Dissenters to the Protestant succession and their valuable contributions to the stability and prosperity of the state.³⁴

Key Figures in the Pamphlet Wars

The Occasional Conformity Controversy was fought out extensively in print, with numerous pamphlets articulating the opposing viewpoints:

Daniel Defoe: His involvement was complex. He initially condemned occasional conformity in harsh terms.³¹ His anonymous satirical pamphlet, The Shortest Way with the Dissenters (1702), which mimicked extremist High Church rhetoric to expose its bigotry, famously backfired, leading to his prosecution for seditious libel and punishment in the pillory.³⁴ After this experience, Defoe's writings on the subject often shifted to emphasize the need for peace and Protestant union, defending Dissenters' loyalty.³⁴
Nonjuror Pamphleteers: Figures like Charles Leslie became prominent in the opposition, particularly after 1703. They moved the debate beyond simple party politics to focus on fundamental issues of ecclesiology, the integrity of Anglican communion, and the perceived dangers of religious "moderation".²⁸ Leslie, for instance, critiqued what he saw as a one-sided liberality afforded to Dissenters that was not reciprocated.³⁷
High Church Clergy: Individuals like Dr. Henry Sacheverell gained notoriety for their inflammatory sermons and pamphlets attacking Dissenters, occasional conformity, and those within the Church of England perceived as too sympathetic to Dissent (the "false brethren"). Sacheverell's impeachment and trial in 1710 became a major political event.³¹
Latitudinarian Bishops: Figures such as Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, consistently opposed the bills aimed at preventing occasional conformity. They viewed such measures as an attack on the principles of comprehension and toleration, which they considered to be the traditional and wisest policy of the Church of England towards Dissenters.³³ Burnet, for example, saw the bills as inherently divisive and counterproductive to Protestant unity.³⁰

Legislative Efforts and the Occasional Conformity Act (1711)

Several attempts by Tories and High Churchmen to pass legislation against occasional conformity failed in Parliament between 1702 and 1704, often due to opposition in the Whig-influenced House of Lords, where Latitudinarian bishops held sway.30

However, a shift in the political climate eventually led to success. The Occasional Conformity Act was finally passed in December 1711.2 This Act imposed substantial fines and mandated removal from office for any officeholder who, after qualifying by taking Anglican communion, was subsequently found attending any Dissenting meeting house where five or more people were assembled in addition to the household.

While the passage of the Act was a significant victory for the Tory and High Church agenda, its practical effects were somewhat muted. Many Dissenting officeholders reportedly found ways to circumvent the law, for instance, by attending public Anglican services regularly while conducting their Dissenting worship privately in their homes.30 The Act itself proved to be relatively short-lived; it was repealed in 1719 when the Whigs returned to power.30

The Tories also passed the Schism Act in 1714, which aimed to cripple Dissenting education by forbidding anyone who attended a Dissenting chapel from teaching in a school. Violators faced imprisonment. However, Queen Anne died on the very day this Act was to take effect, and its enforcement was subsequently lax, limiting its impact.2

The entire Occasional Conformity controversy serves as a powerful illustration that the "toleration" granted by the Act of 1689 was not a universally accepted or stable consensus. Instead, it marked the beginning of a long and often contentious negotiation over the civil, political, and religious rights of minorities in England. The debates revealed profound societal anxieties about national identity, the role and security of the established Church, and the extent to which religious pluralism could be accommodated within the existing political framework. The 1689 Act, far from settling these issues, acted as a catalyst for ongoing struggles over the meaning of citizenship and the practical implications of religious diversity in the English state.

8. Toleration Beyond England: Comparative Developments in Scotland and Ireland

While the Act of Toleration of 1689 was an English statute, its passage occurred within the broader context of the British Isles, where Scotland and Ireland had distinct religious landscapes and experienced their own unique, though related, processes of religious settlement following the Glorious Revolution. Comparing these developments reveals the varied and often politically contingent nature of "toleration" across the three kingdoms.

Scotland: Presbyterian Re-establishment and "Comprehension"

The Revolution Settlement in Scotland took a markedly different course from that in England.

Presbyterianism Re-established (1689-1690): The most significant outcome of the Glorious Revolution in Scotland was the re-establishment of Presbyterianism as the national Church (the Kirk) in 1690. Episcopacy, which had been imposed during the Restoration, was abolished by the Scottish Parliament in July 1689.¹³ The Westminster Confession of Faith was ratified as the subordinate standard of the Church of Scotland in June 1690.³⁹ This was a monumental victory for Scottish Presbyterians, reversing decades of struggle against episcopal governance.
Attempts at "Comprehension" for Episcopalians: Unlike in England where the Toleration Act primarily aimed to manage Dissent outside the established Church, Scottish authorities initially pursued a policy of "comprehension" for Episcopalians. Several attempts were made between 1689 and 1694 (five major efforts according to one source ³⁹; specific years cited include 1689, 1690, 1692, and 1693 ³⁹) to accommodate Episcopalian ministers within the re-established Presbyterian Kirk. This typically involved requiring them to take oaths of allegiance to the new monarchs and to subscribe to Presbyterian church government and the Confession of Faith.³⁹ This policy aimed to preserve a greater degree of religious uniformity and social cohesion than the English model of tolerating separate Dissenting bodies.³⁹ However, these efforts faced considerable challenges, stemming from the staunch commitment of many Presbyterians to strict uniformity and the principled reluctance of many Episcopalians to abandon their episcopal convictions and, for some, their Jacobite loyalties.³⁹ While not entirely successful in achieving full uniformity, these repeated attempts at comprehension marked a significant effort to manage religious division and ultimately contributed to a reluctant societal acceptance of pluralism in Scotland.³⁹
The Scottish Toleration Act (1712): This Act, passed by the now-united British Parliament (after the 1707 Act of Union), significantly altered the religious landscape for Episcopalians in Scotland. It granted freedom of worship to Scottish Episcopalians who used the English Book of Common Prayer, provided their ministers took oaths of allegiance to the Hanoverian monarch (Queen Anne at the time, then George I) and prayed explicitly for the sovereign.⁴⁰ A crucial aspect of the 1712 Act was that it allowed Episcopalians and Anglicans in Scotland to hold public office without being required to subscribe to Presbyterian doctrines or take a sacramental test specific to the Church of Scotland.⁴⁰ This contrasted sharply with the situation for Presbyterians and other Dissenters in England and Ireland, who remained subject to the Test Acts. The Scottish Toleration Act of 1712 was deeply controversial among devout Presbyterians. They viewed it as an unwelcome imposition by the British Parliament that undermined the authority and discipline of the established Kirk, gave undue protection to what they considered the "popish canons and ceremonies" of Episcopalianism, and potentially opened the door to "all sects and heretics".⁴³ Furthermore, the Act included a clause that removed the civil penalties associated with excommunication by the Church of Scotland, which was seen as a direct blow to the Kirk's disciplinary powers.⁴³ This Act, imposed by the British Parliament often against the wishes of the dominant Presbyterian Kirk, serves as an early illustration of the emerging tensions within the 1707 Union. It demonstrated the potential for British imperial policy, formulated in London, to override or interfere with local Scottish religious settlements, leading to resentment and further complexities in church-state relations within the newly formed Kingdom of Great Britain.

Ireland: Limited Toleration for Protestant Dissenters

The religious situation in Ireland was unique due to the presence of a Protestant Ascendancy (largely Anglican Church of Ireland) ruling over a predominantly Roman Catholic native population, with a significant concentration of Protestant Dissenters (mainly Presbyterians) in Ulster.

Context of Penal Laws: While Protestant Dissenters faced civil disabilities similar to their counterparts in England, the Roman Catholic majority in Ireland was subjected to a far more severe and comprehensive system of penal laws, designed to dispossess them of land, exclude them from public life, and suppress their religion.⁴⁴
The Irish Toleration Act (1719) (6 Geo. I c. 5 (I)): Officially titled "An Act for exempting the Protestant Dissenters of this kingdom from certain penalties to which they are now subject" ⁴⁶, this Act was passed by the Irish Parliament. It granted Protestant Dissenters, primarily Presbyterians, the freedom to practice their religion openly and to establish their own schools.⁴⁴ However, the Irish Toleration Act had critical limitations. Most significantly, it did not repeal the sacramental test for public office. A clause in the Act to Prevent the Further Growth of Popery (1704) had mandated that all holders of crown and municipal offices qualify themselves by taking communion in the established Church of Ireland. This requirement remained in force after 1719, meaning that Irish Protestant Dissenters continued to be largely excluded from civil and military positions.⁴⁴ Roman Catholics, of course, were not beneficiaries of this Act and remained subject to the harsh penal code.⁴⁵ The struggle for the repeal of the sacramental test in Ireland became a long-standing campaign for Irish Dissenters, with figures like the philosopher Francis Hutcheson (who ran an academy in Dublin under the Act's protection ⁴⁴) and the minister John Abernathy arguing passionately for their civil rights.⁴⁴
Westminster's Legislative Supremacy: It is also important to note that the Irish Parliament operated under significant constraints imposed by Westminster. Poynings' Law (1494) had long given the English (and later British) Privy Council control over Irish legislation. The Declaratory Act of 1720 further solidified Westminster's claim to legislate for Ireland and to act as the final court of appeal for Irish cases.⁴⁸ This overarching constitutional framework inevitably shaped the nature and extent of religious toleration that could be achieved or permitted in Ireland.

The differing approaches to religious minorities across the three kingdoms highlight the complex interplay of local power dynamics, historical legacies, and strategic imperial considerations. In Scotland, the numerical strength and political influence of Episcopalians, particularly among the gentry, and the ever-present undercurrent of Jacobitism, likely necessitated a more conciliatory approach, leading first to attempts at comprehension and later to a statutory toleration that notably lacked a sacramental test for Scottish Episcopalians seeking office within Scotland.³⁹ In England and Ireland, by contrast, Protestant Dissenters, while numerous, did not pose the same kind of consolidated territorial or aristocratic challenge to the established Anglican order. The Anglican establishments in these kingdoms were more firmly entrenched and proved more resistant to sharing civil and political power without the prerequisite of conformity, hence the retention of the Test Acts. This comparative view demonstrates that "toleration" in the post-Revolution British Isles was not a monolithic concept applied uniformly, but rather a series of calibrated responses tailored to the specific political and religious conditions prevailing in each kingdom.

The following table provides a comparative overview of these toleration measures:

Table 2: Comparative Overview of Toleration Measures in the British Isles (Late 17th - Early 18th Century)

Feature	England (Act of Toleration 1689)	Scotland (Settlement 1690 & Toleration Act 1712)	Ireland (Toleration Act 1719)
Primary Legislation	Act of Toleration (1689) ¹	Acts Ratifying Confession of Faith & Settling Presbyterian Gov. (1690) ³⁹; Scottish Toleration Act (1712) ⁴⁰	Irish Toleration Act (1719) ⁴⁷
Main Beneficiaries	Trinitarian Protestant Dissenters (Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Quakers) ²	Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) established ³⁹; Episcopalians (tolerated under 1712 Act) ⁴⁰	Protestant Dissenters (mainly Presbyterians) ⁴⁴
Key Exclusions	Roman Catholics, Non-Trinitarians (Unitarians), Jews, Atheists, Nonjuring Anglicans ⁶	Roman Catholics; initially non-conforming Episcopalians (until 1712 Act, then only if oaths not taken)	Roman Catholics; Non-Trinitarians effectively excluded by implication if similar to English terms.
Path to Civil Office	Test & Corporation Acts remained (required Anglican communion - led to Occasional Conformity) ²	For Church of Scotland members, no bar. For Episcopalians post-1712, oaths of allegiance required but no specific Presbyterian sacramental test for Scottish offices.⁴⁰	Sacramental Test (Church of Ireland communion) remained from 1704 Act, largely excluding Dissenters from office.⁴⁴
Nature of Toleration	Exemption from penalties for non-attendance at C of E; freedom to worship in registered meeting houses. Civil disabilities largely remained. ¹	Presbyterianism established as national church. Attempts at comprehension for Episcopalians, then statutory toleration for their worship. ³⁹	Exemption from penalties for non-attendance at C of I; freedom of worship & schools for Dissenters. Civil disabilities largely remained. ⁴⁴

This comparative framework underscores that the path to religious toleration was uneven and heavily influenced by the specific political, religious, and social contexts of each of the three kingdoms within the evolving British state.

9. Long-Term Significance and Historiographical Perspectives

The Act of Toleration of 1689, despite its immediate limitations and pragmatic origins, holds a significant place in the long-term development of religious liberty and pluralism in England and the broader Anglophone world. Its legacy is complex, viewed by historians through various lenses that reflect evolving understandings of progress, power, and societal change.

A Step Towards Religious Liberty, Not Its Culmination

It is crucial to recognize that the Act of Toleration marked a significant departure from the preceding era of enforced religious uniformity, but it was by no means the culmination of a journey towards full religious freedom or equality.7 It represented, as one source puts it, "the beginning of a lengthy process towards conceding full civil rights to people outside the Anglican Church".7 The extensive social and political disabilities imposed on Protestant Dissenters by the Test and Corporation Acts remained in force for over a century, only being repealed in 1828.9 Roman Catholics had to wait even longer for substantial relief, with Catholic Emancipation largely achieved in 1829.9 Thus, the 1689 Act was a foundational, yet deeply imperfect, step.

Fostering Religious Pluralism

By granting legal recognition to the existence of Dissenting congregations and permitting them to worship publicly, the Act undeniably contributed to the gradual acceptance and normalization of religious pluralism in English society.1 It "legally endorsed an unprecedented level of religious diversity in England" 1, even if that diversity was primarily confined to Trinitarian Protestantism. This legal space, however limited, allowed Dissenting traditions to survive, organize, and develop their own institutions, such as the Dissenting Academies. However, this emerging pluralism was hierarchical; the Church of England retained its established status, its legal privileges, and its significant social and political influence, while tolerated groups occupied a subordinate position.

The Act of Toleration, by creating a formal legal category of "tolerated Dissenter," may have inadvertently played a role in solidifying Dissenting identities and strengthening their institutions. Prior to 1689, Dissent often existed in a more precarious state, fluctuating between periods of clandestine operation and temporary, often unreliable, royal indulgences. The Act, by providing a recognized, albeit circumscribed, legal space ¹, allowed Dissenting communities to build public meeting houses, organize their congregations more openly, and establish enduring educational and religious networks.² This enhanced public and legal presence, despite the persistence of civil disabilities, arguably fostered a stronger sense of collective identity among various Dissenting groups. Over the long term, these more organized and self-aware communities became more effective lobbies for the expansion of their civil and religious rights, contributing to the sustained campaigns that eventually led to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in the 19th century.⁹ Thus, an Act intended primarily to manage and contain dissent may have, over time, inadvertently empowered it.

Shaping Church-State Relations

As an integral part of the Glorious Revolution settlement, the Act of Toleration contributed to a significant redefinition of the relationship between church and state in England. It marked a decisive move away from the older ideal of a single, monolithic state church that encompassed all citizens and enforced religious uniformity.13 The Act implicitly acknowledged that the state could coexist with multiple forms of Protestant worship. Furthermore, it underscored the growing role of Parliament, as opposed to solely the monarch or the Church's own convocations, as a key arbiter in determining national religious policy.

Scholarly Debates and Interpretations

The Act of Toleration has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate, with interpretations evolving over time:

Pragmatic Political Fix vs. Principled Milestone: A dominant strand in modern historiography views the Act primarily as a pragmatic political measure, born of necessity to ensure the stability of the Williamite regime and to unite Protestants against perceived Catholic threats, rather than as a triumph of abstract tolerationist ideals or enlightenment principles.¹¹ It is often described as a "fortuitous compromise and a fudge" rather than the deliberate enactment of a grand vision of religious liberty.¹⁸
Whig Interpretation: Traditional Whig historiography, prevalent in the 19th and early 20th centuries, tended to celebrate the Act of Toleration as a glorious milestone on England's path towards liberty, constitutional government, and enlightenment.¹⁸ This perspective often framed the Act as a key victory for progressive forces.
Revisionist Views: More recent scholarship has adopted a more critical and revisionist stance, emphasizing the Act's significant limitations, the continued power of intolerance in late 17th and 18th-century England, and its character as a reluctant concession granted by a still-dominant Anglican establishment anxious to preserve its core privileges.¹³ Some historians have labeled it an "ambiguous document whose flaws were resolved in the decades that followed," highlighting its incompleteness as a solution to religious tensions.²⁰
The Influence of John Locke: The extent of John Locke's direct influence on the framing of the Act of Toleration itself remains a subject of debate. While his A Letter Concerning Toleration was published contemporaneously and articulated powerful philosophical arguments for religious freedom, many historians argue that the Act was shaped more by immediate political pressures and negotiations.¹¹ Locke's ideas, however, became profoundly important in the subsequent decades, as Dissenters increasingly drew upon his arguments to campaign for the removal of their remaining civil disabilities and for a more comprehensive understanding of religious liberty.¹⁷
The "Permission Conception" of Toleration: The Act is frequently analyzed through the theoretical lens of the "permission conception" of toleration, as articulated by scholars like Rainer Forst.⁴ This framework highlights that the toleration granted was not an inherent right but a conditional privilege extended by the state, which retained the power to define its limits and potentially revoke it.

The ongoing historiographical debates surrounding the Act of Toleration—contrasting Whig narratives with revisionist critiques, and weighing pragmatic motivations against principled ideals—reflect broader shifts in how historians approach the interpretation of progress, power, and the complex nature of historical change. There has been a discernible move away from teleological narratives that portray history as a simple, linear march towards liberty. Instead, contemporary analyses tend to offer more nuanced understandings of events like the passage of the Toleration Act, recognizing them as complex products of their specific time, deeply shaped by power struggles, contingent circumstances, and often falling short of later ideals. This allows for a more critical appreciation of the Act, not as a pure embodiment of abstract principles, but as a multifaceted compromise reflecting the persistence of established power structures alongside emergent pressures for change.

Enduring Legacy of Limitations and Exclusions

The Act's limitations, particularly the exclusion of Roman Catholics, had profound and lasting negative consequences, especially for the history of Anglo-Irish relations and for the status of Catholics within Britain for centuries. The slow and arduous process by which Protestant Dissenters, and eventually Catholics and Jews, achieved full civil and political rights underscores the deeply entrenched nature of Anglican privilege and the incremental, often contested, path towards genuine religious equality in Britain.

10. Concluding Analysis and Avenues for Further Scholarly Inquiry

The Act of Toleration of 1689 stands as a complex and multifaceted landmark in English history. It was undeniably a product of the specific political and religious crises of the Glorious Revolution, conceived primarily as a pragmatic instrument to secure the new Williamite regime and foster Protestant unity against perceived internal and external threats. Its character was thus more that of a carefully calibrated political solution than an idealistic blueprint for comprehensive religious freedom. The Act embodied a significant duality: on one hand, it offered unprecedented legal relief from persecution for a substantial body of Trinitarian Protestant Dissenters, formally acknowledging a degree of religious pluralism previously denied. On the other hand, its explicit exclusion of Roman Catholics, non-Trinitarians, and others, coupled with the retention of significant civil disabilities for even the tolerated groups, starkly affirmed the limits of this new religious accommodation and the continued dominance of the Anglican establishment.

The passage of the Act brought into sharp relief the persistent tensions inherent in navigating religious diversity within a societal framework where religious affiliation and political allegiance were deeply intertwined. It highlighted the enduring struggle between the imperatives of state security, the long-held desire for social cohesion often pursued through religious uniformity (or at least the clear preeminence of an established church), and the burgeoning claims of individual conscience and the freedom to worship according to personal conviction.

While the Act of Toleration has been extensively studied, several avenues for further scholarly inquiry could deepen our understanding of its impact and context:

Local Implementation Studies: While the legislative framework of the Act is well-documented, more granular research into how its provisions were interpreted, enforced, and experienced at the local level across different regions of England could reveal significant variations and offer insights into the practical realities of "toleration" on the ground.
The Lived Experiences of Excluded Groups: The Act is clear on who it excluded, but the day-to-day lives, survival strategies, and clandestine religious practices of Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Jews, and atheists in England in the decades following 1689 merit further detailed investigation. Such studies could illuminate the social and cultural impact of being formally outside the bounds of tolerated religious expression.
A Broader Comparative European Context: While comparisons are often made with the Edict of Nantes ¹⁹ or practices in the Dutch Republic ⁵², a more systematic comparative analysis of the English Act of Toleration with contemporary toleration edicts, policies, and practices in other European territories (such as various German principalities, Scandinavian countries, or Habsburg lands) could better situate the English experience within the wider spectrum of European approaches to religious diversity in this period.
Theological Evolution of "Toleration": Further research could explore in greater depth how theological understandings of the concept of "toleration" itself evolved within different religious denominations (Anglican, various Dissenting groups, and even among English Catholics in response to their exclusion) in the wake of the Act and subsequent related legislation like the Occasional Conformity Act.
Impact on Colonial Religious Policy and Practice: The snippets touch upon the Act's applicability in Virginia ¹, but a more comprehensive and comparative study of how the Act of Toleration – its principles, its limitations, and its underlying assumptions – was interpreted, adapted, or disregarded across the diverse religious and political landscapes of the North American colonies would be a valuable contribution. This could shed light on the complex transmission and transformation of metropolitan religious policies in colonial settings.

The Act of Toleration, by establishing a legal framework for a limited and controlled form of religious diversity, may have unintentionally set in motion processes that contributed to the gradual secularization of political discourse over the very long term. By formally acknowledging that not all loyal subjects of the Crown belonged to the Church of England, the Act marked an early, albeit tentative, step in the slow decoupling of specific religious affiliation from full participation in the life of the state (though, as noted, significant civil disabilities for non-Anglicans persisted for well over a century ⁹). As Dissenters and, much later, other excluded groups progressively gained more civil and political rights, the state was increasingly compelled to operate on principles that could accommodate a wider range of religious (and eventually non-religious) viewpoints. This necessitated a gradual shift towards a more recognizably secular basis for law and public policy, as overtly Anglican justifications for state actions became less tenable in a society where other Protestant groups were legally recognized, politically active, and increasingly demanding equal citizenship. The 1689 Act was a small, early, and largely unintended contribution to this lengthy and complex historical trajectory.

Furthermore, the very concept of "toleration" as embodied in the 1689 Act – with its inherent power imbalance where the state tolerates (i.e., endures or permits) certain groups – contained within it the seeds of its own eventual critique and supersession. This "permission conception" ⁴, where toleration is a conditional privilege granted by the state rather than an inherent right of the individual, implicitly acknowledges the state's power to retract that privilege.¹⁹ As Dissenting groups gained in confidence, numbers, and intellectual articulation (drawing, for example, on Lockean ideas of natural rights and the proper sphere of government ¹⁷), they began to argue not merely for an expansion of toleration, but for religious liberty and civil equality as fundamental human rights, not as favors to be bestowed or withheld by the state. The manifest limitations and pointed exclusions of the 1689 Act served as a constant reminder of its inadequacy, thereby fueling the intellectual and political movements that would, over the subsequent century and a half, campaign successfully for a more robust, rights-based understanding of religious freedom. In this sense, the Act's own imperfections spurred the very developments that would ultimately transcend its limited vision of a society where religious difference was merely tolerated rather than fully embraced as a matter of equal right.

陶双文 Tao Shuangwen

2025年5月24日星期六

The Act of Toleration (1689)