THE PUTNEY DEBATES 1647
Freedom of Religious Worship - written by William Whyte, St Johns college, Oxford
the run up to the Civil War, the role of religion in national life was hotly
contested. For most people, England was a Protestant place. But what
Protestantism meant in practice was far from clear. For Charles I and for
Archbishop Laud, the ideal was a centralized, hierarchical Church: led by its
bishops, who were the King’s servants. Church buildings should be stately
and gracious and worship should be orderly and measured. For their opponents
– the people we know as Puritans – all this smacked of corruption. Their
ideal was simplicity and authenticity. Church buildings were unimportant;
ritual and religious images were dangerous – even idolatrous; bishops had no
place in a believers’ church.
struggle between these different religious ideals was political as well as
theological. It was political because the Church was political: its bishops
were appointed by the king and sat in parliament; the Church was responsible
to the State. It was political because people understood politics in religious
terms. At the Putney Debates themselves, the problems faced by the New Model
Army were attributed to God’s anger. And it was political because the
religious reforms envisaged by both Charles and his Puritan opponents had a
political dimension. For Charles and for Laud, the orderly, hierarchical
Church was intended to underpin an orderly, hierarchical society. For the
Puritans, by contrast, the simple, honest, authentic Church was intended to
transform the country into a nation of Bible-reading Christians; people who
would abandon ‘Pagan’ festivals like Christmas, ‘Pagan’ activities
like sport, and ‘Pagan’ habits like drinking too much.
Charles and many of his Puritan opponents wanted to enforce their vision of
religion on all people, at the Putney Debates another vision of religious life
was proclaimed. Almost all those present were Puritans – but they were what
were known as ‘Independents’. They believed in freedom of conscience and
in freedom of worship. No one, they affirmed, should be compelled to attend
church or forced to conform to another person’s beliefs.
This was not the first time that such a principle was articulated. Nor did everyone accept its implications. But some these ideas were carried out under Cromwell and still others were embodied in the Toleration Act of 1689. Religion remained hotly contested, but increasingly – in England at any rate – people no longer died to preserve their freedom of conscience.
We acknowledge all trademarks referred to in our content and that of the sites we link to.