THE COMPLEXITIES OF WHIG AND TORY ANTI-CATHOLICISM IN LATE
SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND

By

Matthew L. Levine, B.A.
Misericordia University

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts in History
to the Office of Graduate and Extended Studies
of East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania

December 14, 2019

SIGNATURE/APPROVAL PAGE
The signed approval page for this thesis was intentionally removed from the online copy by an
authorized administrator at Kemp Library.
The final approved signature page for this thesis is on file with the Office of Graduate and
Extended Studies. Please contact Theses@esu.edu with any questions.

ABSTRACT

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts in History to the Office of Graduate and Extended
Studies of East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
Student’s Name: Matthew Levine
Title: The Complexities of Whig and Tory Anti-Catholicism in Late Seventeenth-Century
England
Date of Graduation: December 14, 2019
Thesis Chair: Christopher Dudley, Ph.D.
Thesis Member: Shannon Frystak, Ph.D.

Abstract
The purpose of my research is to analyze anti-Catholicism in late seventeenth-century
England in order to comprehend how complex it was. I analyzed primary (published) sources
such as dialogues, diaries, histories, letters, pamphlets, royal proclamations, and sermons to get
my results. Based on this research, I argue that Whiggish anti-Catholicism remained mostly
static over time, while the Toryish variant changed in four different ways; this reflected each
party’s different approach to anti-Catholicism. The Whigs focused on Francophobia, the threat
that Catholicism posed to Protestant liberties, and toleration of all Protestants, while the Tories
focused on loyalty to Anglicanism and the threat that Catholics and Dissenters posed to
Anglicanism. While the Whigs did not change with different contexts, the Tories did so four
times. The significance is that, while the core principles might have remained fairly static, the
presentation and impact of those ideas changed with different circumstances.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.

ii

CHAPTER 1.

Anti-Catholicism Before James II’s Reign

CHAPTER 2.

Anti-Catholicism Between 1685 and 1688:

CHAPTER 3.

1

James II’s Reign

17

Anti-Catholicism, William III-Style

32

CONCLUSION.

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

54

i

INTRODUCTION
Anti-Catholicism was a defining component of life in England ever since the
Reformation, when King Henry VIII (ruled 1509-47) broke away from the Catholic
Church to establish his own Church. It encouraged animosity towards Catholic Queen
Mary I (ruled 1553-8), who became known in popular English Protestant mythology as
“Bloody Mary.” When the Spanish Armada invaded England in 1588 and suffered a
crushing defeat, English Protestants hailed the victory as a “Protestant wind” that had
saved their country from Catholicism. Finally, the English conquest of Ireland
encouraged adventurers and landowners to invest in Catholic-owned property, promoted
rulers such as Oliver Cromwell to pass more draconian legislation against Irish Catholics,
and exacerbated religious tensions on both sides that lasted well into the twentieth
century. In the late seventeenth century, anti-Catholicism was still influential in shaping
the ideologies of two political parties in England, the Whigs and the Tories. Both formed
in the 1670’s, during the reign of King Charles II (ruled 1660-1685), and continued
developing during the 1680’s and 1690’s, under the reigns of two successive Kings:
James II, who was Catholic (1685-1688) and William III, who was Protestant, waged war
against France, and ruled with Mary II (1689-1694) and alone (1694-1702). While both

ii

parties included anti-Catholicism as part of their ideologies, they formulated different
versions of anti-Catholicism.
The Whigs believed, on one hand, in the inclusion of all Protestants by uniting
them under an anti-Catholic banner (this meant accepting Dissenters, or non-Anglican
Protestants, in addition to Anglicans as part of promoting this cause), that Protestantism
and liberty were associated with each other, and that Catholicism threatened both, and the
view that France under Louis XIV (whom the Whigs viewed as the epitome of tyranny
under absolutism) was their foremost threat. The Whigs were also pro-Dutch, and
advocated for William III to fight Louis XIV in a land war on the European Continent.1
Ultimately, Whig anti-Catholicism remained fairly static.
The Tories, on the other hand, understood the threat to the Church of England to
emanate from two sources: the Catholic Church and Dissenters. They viewed Catholicism
as primarily a threat to the Church of England, and they also viewed Dissenters as an
equally dangerous threat (unlike the Whigs), accusing this group’s members of working
together with Catholics to weaken the Anglican Church.2 Unlike the static nature of Whig
anti-Catholicism, Tory anti-Catholicism changed in four ways over time: first, coming
out of the Civil War, Dissenters were the only threat about which to worry. Second,
during the 1670’s, the Catholicism of Louis XIV and James (while Duke of York) raised
concerns, and became incorporated into the Tories’ “threat to Church” matrix. Thus,
when James became King, his promise to respect the established Church satisfied most
1

For more information on the Whigs, see Robert Bucholz and Newton Key, Early
Modern England, 1485-1714: A Narrative History, 2nd ed. (Chichester, UK: WileyBlackwell, 2009), 298, and J. R. Jones’s 1961 study, The First Whigs: The Politics of the
Exclusion Crisis, 1678-1683 (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).
2

See Bucholz and Key, page 298.
iii

Tories. Third, the Declaration of Indulgence that James passed in 1687 shattered this
satisfaction among Tories, who claimed that he now sought to weaken the Anglican
Church. Fourth, and finally, under William, the presence of a successive non-Anglican
monarch on the English throne colored Tories’ anti-Catholicism in multiple ways; some
Tories, for example, maintained that both Catholics and Dissenters were threats to
Anglicanism, other Tories reverted to pre-Exclusion Crisis ideas that only Dissenters
were a threat, while a third faction endorsed the return of James II to the English throne
(aligned with an ideology called “Jacobitism”).
These ideological differences (and changes over time within the Tory Party, in its
case) appeared in the many writings on anti-Catholicism that circulated widely during
this time period. During the 1670’s and beyond, for example, Whigs produced pamphlets
that warned of the French menace to England, the threats that Catholicism posed to
Protestants, and the necessity of an Anglo-Dutch alliance to counter French aggression.
Tories, on the other hand, produced pamphlets that celebrated the Anglican Church’s
virtues, denounced non-Conformists collectively as “Phanaticks” and “Jack Presbyter,”
and highlighted the four stages of development that their anti-Catholicism underwent. As
the era that this thesis discusses ended, these ideological differences (especially amidst
the Tories) had reached their climax.
It is the intent of this research to argue that the Whigs and the Tories approached,
and developed within the context of, anti-Catholicism differently during the late
seventeenth century; while the Whigs’ approach mostly remained static, the Tories’
changed in the four ways aforementioned. In the process, this thesis will analyze how
anti-Catholicism propelled the development of both parties along separate lines; it will

iv

also utilize the research question: Why did both parties approach, and develop within the
context of, anti-Catholicism differently? More specifically, this thesis will also analyze
three sets of questions concerning its argument:
1) What differentiated (proto-) Whiggish anti-Catholicism from its (proto-)
Toryish counterpart? What were some writings that promoted these
parties’ separate anti-Catholic views?
2) How did Whigs and Tories respond to James II differently on the basis of
his Catholicism, and what was the impact of his Declaration of Indulgence
upon both party members’ anti-Catholicism?
3) How did Whigs and Tories use anti-Catholicism to respond to William
III? More specifically, in what ways did Whigs remain united and Tories
become more fragmented during his reign? How did Whigs and Tories use
anti-Catholicism to counterattack each other in their pamphlets?
The answer to the research question is the subject of this paragraph. While both
parties held different opinions as to why Catholicism was bad, the threats to Whiggish
anti-Catholicism remained constant over time, while those to the Tory variant changed
more with the circumstances. For the Whigs, Catholicism was threatening to Protestant
liberties, endangered Protestants’ security (especially the United Provinces’), and
symbolized tyrannical absolutism (as seen with Louis XIV of France). For the Tories,
Dissenters started out as the main threat to the Anglican Church, then Catholics became
an additional one, and, finally, James II and William III (according to Tories who took
the Jacobite position) allegedly worked to destroy Anglicanism.

v

The significance of this research is that it leads to a better understanding of how
anti-Catholicism in late seventeenth-century England was more complex than unitary,
especially when party politics had the potential to shape it. Moreover, understanding this
historical trend provides an insight into how Whig/Tory ideas added a new dimension to
anti-Catholic politics in England during the late seventeenth century. The competition
between both sets of ideas defined this anti-Catholic ideological realm that witnessed the
Exclusion Crisis, the pro-French sentiments of a Catholic monarch, and propaganda
warfare between Whigs and Tories during William III’s reign. This is important in
considering how religion still had the potential to shape English politics in the late
seventeenth century, as the following paragraph on this thesis’s historiography suggests,
especially in contributing to a new two-party system. In the area of politics, it is
important to understand how religion shaped it.
There are many works on this period that analyze aspects of party politics and
political culture during the later Stuart era, such as Whiggism, Toryism, and the
importance of anti-Catholicism in shaping political culture. This thesis highlights all of
these individual aspects while making specific Whiggish and Toryish anti-Catholicism
more noticeable. The historiography on this subject dates back to the nineteenth century,
when works such as Thomas Babington Macaulay’s The History of England from the
Accession of James the Second (1848) utilized a Whiggish approach to English party
politics and political culture. The first comprehensive survey on the Tories, Keith
Feiling’s A history of the Tory party, 1640-1714, only appeared in 1924, while the first
survey on the Whigs, J. R. Jones’s The first Whigs; the politics of the Exclusion Crisis,
1678-1683, followed in 1961. Feiling’s work claims that the Tories’ dual loyalties to

vi

Anglicanism and the monarchy reflected both seventeenth-century aristocracy and
feudalism, while Jones identifies the Whigs as a single-issue party centered around
excluding the future King James II from the throne. Twenty-six years passed before Tim
Harris’s study on London crowd politics during the Restoration, London Crowds in the
Reign of Charles II – Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration, appeared;
particularly, Harris writes that “bottom-up” anti-Catholicism was more important than its
“top-down” counterpart. Finally, John Spurr’s 1991 study, The Restoration Church of
England, limits its focus to the Anglican Church while claiming that Dissenters did not
truly prosper until the Glorious Revolution’s aftermath. The initial historiography
certainly hints at aspects of Whiggish and Toryish anti-Catholicism (with the notable
exception of Spurr), but it is this thesis’s function to give attention to both parties’
approaches to this idea as a whole.3
Since Harris’s 1993 study, Politics under the later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a
Divided Society 1660-1715, some additional works have emerged in its successful wake;
this study provided the most comprehensive survey of later Stuart party politics up to that
point. Among some of these works are Mark Knights’s 1994 study, Politics and Opinion
in Crisis, 1678-81, and Jonathan Scott’s England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century
English Political Instability in European Context (2000). Particularly, Knights’s work
includes several useful nuggets of information regarding Whiggish and Toryish anti-

3

See Keith Feiling, A History of the Tory Party, 1640-1714 (London: Oxford
University Press, 1924); Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II –
Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1987); J. R. Jones, The first Whigs: The politics of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678-1683
(London: Oxford University Press, 1961); and John Spurr, The Restoration Church of
England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991).
vii

Catholicism; for example, Knights successfully places both parties’ origins in religious
contexts during the 1670’s. Finally, Scott identifies the formulation of “Whiggish” ideas
during Charles II’s reign; yet, while Knights’s work leans more towards this thesis’s
ideas, Scott’s tends to downplay both Whiggish and Toryish anti-Catholicism. This thesis
intends to preserve the points in Knights’s work regarding this subject while building on
Scott’s approach to English politics.4
Some more recent works in this historiography use a chronological approach to
events such as the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, with Tim Harris analyzing
the Restoration in his 2005 study Restoration: Charles II and his Kingdoms, 1660-1685,
in order to understand the Glorious Revolution in its entirety; this is the topic of
Restoration’s sequel, Revolution – The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685-1720
(2006). A more specific analysis of the Glorious Revolution, in turn, is the subject of
Steven C. A. Pincus’s 2009 study, 1688: The First Modern Revolution. Pincus’s study
claims just what the title suggests; the Glorious Revolution was, for him, the first modern
revolution, albeit hardly a “glorious” one in a sense that it produced a united consensus.
Also, Pincus is radical in claiming that William III’s war against Louis XIV was not
religious, but international; that is not what this thesis sets out to do. Rather, it partly
claims that Whiggish anti-Catholic pamphlets justified William III’s war against France
and alleged that Tories were secretly pro-Catholic Jacobites, while Toryish anti-Catholic

4

See Tim Harris, Politics under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided
Society 1660-1715 (New York: Longman Publishing, 1993); Mark Knights, Politics and
Opinion in Crisis, 1678-81 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 116 & 140;
and Jonathan Scott, England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political
Instability in European Context (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000),
accessed June 18, 2019, EBSCOhost.
viii

pamphlets highlighted an ideology now fragmented into three positions as a response to
William III’s presence. This is a point that Chapter Three of this thesis will analyze in
more detail.5
The final three books that are analyzed as part of this historiography highlight the
persistence of partisan anti-Catholicism amidst England’s path towards the
Enlightenment: Mark Knights’s Representation and Misrepresentation in Later Stuart
Britain (2006), John Marshall’s John Locke, Toleration, and Early Enlightenment
Culture (2006), and Bill Bulman’s Anglican Enlightenment (2015). All three of these
works make Enlightenment-centric arguments: Knights’s study claims that later Stuart
Britain’s embrace of a representative society provided a context for the English
Enlightenment, Marshall writes that religious intolerance and “universal religious
toleration” characterized “Early Enlightenment culture,” and Bulman argues that
“Anglican Enlightenment” was the Anglican clergy’s participation in the Enlightenment.
While these authors do identify representative society and universal religious toleration
as central elements of the Enlightenment, their inclusion of anti-Catholicism in their
respective studies hardly does justice to the movement’s status as an intellectually
forward-looking one. It is also important to note that this thesis does not even touch upon
the idea of an “Enlightenment”; rather, it explores a much darker side of intellectualism

5

See Tim Harris, Restoration: Charles II and his Kingdoms, 1660-1685 (New
York: Allen Lane, 2005) and Revolution – The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy,
1685-1720 (New York: Allen Lane, 2006); and Steven C. A. Pincus, 1688: The First
Modern Revolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 339, accessed June
24, 2019, EBSCOhost. Also, for more information on the chapter built around this
argument, see Chapter Three of this thesis, “Anti-Catholicism, William III-Style.”
ix

(this dichotomy of “Enlightenment” vs. “darker intellectualism” is something that
Bulman rejects) by analyzing Whiggish and Toryish anti-Catholic sources.6
This thesis relies on numerous primary sources in order to analyze the partisan
nature of Whiggish and Toryish anti-Catholicism, such as dialogues, diaries, histories,
letters, pamphlets, royal proclamations, and sermons. The majority of these sources
originate from Early English Books Online (EEBO), a particularly useful database for
analyzing English sources from the early modern period. Yet, there are some limitations
that I have confronted in doing this careful research. For example, it was repeatedly
harder to find Tory sources, a possible reflection that that party’s anti-Catholicism was
less clear-cut than the Whigs’. On the other hand, Whig sources were more plentiful and
easier to find; along those lines, it was never easy to identify whether the author of a
certain document was a Whig or Tory without a careful interpretation of that source or a
look at its title, which sometimes was helpful. Also, since my thesis deals almost entirely
with published sources, I have looked at how these parties presented themselves in print
and not seen the inside look that archival sources might have given me for this type of
academic writing.
This thesis will analyze the Whigs’ and Tories’ development during the reigns of
three kings (Charles II, James II, and William III), and between 1670 and 1693; it
includes three chapters, important terms and events, and a conclusion. I argue in Chapter
One that the proto-Whigs formed as an ideologically fixed anti-Catholic group, while the
6

See Bill Bulman, Anglican Enlightenment: Orientalism, Religion and Politics in
England and its Empire, 1648-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015);
Mark Knights, Representation and Misrepresentation in Later Stuart Britain:
Partisanship and Political Culture (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006),
accessed June 24, 2019, EBSCOhost; and John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration, and
Early Enlightenment Culture (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
x

proto-Tories started as anti-Dissenter before changing over time to also become antiCatholic, with the Exclusion Crisis serving as the point when these two groups became
two parties, the Whigs and the Tories, with two different approaches to anti-Catholicism.
In Chapter Two, I argue that the Whigs maintained a constant belief that James II
threatened their anti-Catholic ideology, while the Tories changed by believing his
promise to respect the Anglican Church until they perceived him as threatening it in
conjunction with Dissenters. I argue in Chapter Three that, between 1689 and 1693,
Whiggish anti-Catholic pamphlets unanimously justified William III’s war against France
and alleged that Tories were secretly pro-Catholic Jacobites, while Toryish anti-Catholic
pamphlets highlighted an ideology now fragmented into three positions as a response to
William III’s presence.

xi

CHAPTER 1
ANTI-CATHOLICISM BFORE JAMES II’S REIGN
Between 1670 and 1685, the latter half of the “Restoration” era in England,
religious tensions between Protestants and Catholics continued to fester. Particularly,
these tensions provided the backdrop for two parties that emerged during this time: the
Whigs and the Tories. Before they emerged in 1678, there existed separate strands of
proto-Whig and proto-Tory ideology during the decade. I will argue in this chapter that,
while the proto-Whigs were anti-Catholic from their beginning, the proto-Tories started
out as anti-Dissenter (“Dissenter” was a term for a non-Anglican Protestant) before
incorporating anti-Catholicism into their ideology as the 1670’s progressed; the
Exclusion Crisis would then serve as the point when these two groups became two
parties, the Whigs and the Tories, with two different approaches to anti-Catholicism.
During the 1670’s, the proto-Whigs emphasized aspects including Francophobia
(especially the threat that Louis XIV posed to English Protestantism), concerns about
absolutism, toleration of all Protestants in the face of a Catholic threat, and an alliance
with the United Provinces of the Netherlands. Statesmen such as Slingsby Bethel,
Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Ashley, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Andrew Marvell
highlighted these aspects, which never really changed over time, in their respective

1

works: The Present Interest of England Stated (1671), A letter from a person of quality to
his friend in the country (1675), and An account of the growth of popery and arbitrary
government in England (1677). As such, the proto-Whigs remained an ideologically fixed
group during the 1670’s.
The proto-Tories, on the other hand, initially claimed that Dissenters were the
only threat about which to worry; this was a view that statesman Edward Hyde, the First
Earl of Clarendon, articulated in his 1671 work, The History of the Rebellion. Two years
later, however, when James Stuart (the Duke of York), who had been covertly Catholic,
publicly acknowledged his Catholicism, the proto-Tories asserted that Catholics now
constituted an additional threat to the security of Anglicanism. As a result, their ideology
changed to become both anti-Dissenter and anti-Catholic, meaning that the nature of their
anti-Catholicism was accusatory towards Catholics for collaborating with Dissenters to
weaken the Anglican Church.
The differences between proto-Whig and proto-Tory anti-Catholicism became
even more pronounced after proto-Tory Thomas Osborne, the Earl of Danby, alarmed
proto-Whigs like Shaftesbury by proposing the Test Oath of 1675, which made
Shaftesbury convinced that an absolutist like Louis XIV was planning to introduce
French-style Catholicism into England. In 1678, the Exclusion Crisis would sharpen
further the cleavages between the proto-Whigs and proto-Tories; this event, which
centered on whether or not the Duke of York would become the next King of England,
marked the point at which the proto-Whigs and proto-Tories became the Whigs and
Tories, respectively. The Whigs supported the Duke’s exclusion based on his
Catholicism, while the Tories opposed it based on his anticipated inheritance of the

2

throne, despite his religious faith. At this point in time, more importantly, the Whigs and
Tories were no longer merely two ideological groups, but two formal anti-Catholic
parties with different approaches to that issue: the one pro-Protestant, anti-Catholic, and,
more specifically, anti-French, the other pro-Anglican, anti-Catholic, and anti-Dissenter.
These would become the core principles that characterized each party separately as the
1670’s transitioned to the 1680’s.
In asserting my argument in this chapter, I will examine the pamphlets that both
(proto-) Whigs and (proto-) Tories produced in the 1670’s and early 1680’s. Among the
trends discussed include the development of both (proto-) Whig and (proto-) Tory ideas,
the steady aggression of Louis XIV’s policies, and the role the Exclusion Crisis had in
solidifying the different strands of anti-Catholicism about which this chapter talks; by the
early 1680’s, there were two clear and distinct ideologies of anti-Catholicism, associated
with the two parties. The Exclusion Crisis was especially pressing for Whigs (but less so
for Tories, who advocated for maintaining the Duke’s ascension to the throne, despite his
religion) due to the Duke of York’s Catholicism, which was not only offensive, but also
dangerous because it gravitated towards French absolutism, as it was to prove during his
reign as King James II (1685-1688).
As the 1670’s unfolded, some proto-Whig commentators expressed concerns
about Louis XIV’s newly sought aggression, the exposure of the United Provinces to the
French military, and the threats that Catholicism continued to pose to England that kept
anti-Catholicism alive. One of these commentators was Slingsby Bethel, a politician who
wrote a 1671 pamphlet entitled The present interest of England stated. This document
appeared one year before the Anglo-French attack against the Dutch during the Third

3

Anglo-Dutch War, and stressed the importance of England’s role in protecting not just
itself, but also the United Provinces, from Louis XIV’s aggression.
Bethel, in The present interest of England stated, also anticipated the coming of
one of England’s political ideologies. Bethel’s stated beliefs, such as a pro-Dutch stance,
Francophobia, and toleration of all Protestants, were ideas that would later comprise the
core of the Whig party. Although the labels “Whig” and “Tory” did not exist yet,
Bethel’s ideas could be described as “proto-Whig.” Particularly, Bethel promoted liberty
of conscience for Protestant dissenters, while intending to curb it for Catholics: “As it is
the King and Kingdome of England’s Interest, to give Libertie of Conscience to all
Protestant Dissenters, so it is not only to deny it to the Papists, but also to…prevent the
growth of them….” At the same time, Bethel called out Catholics for their ignorant ways:
“Papists [are] ignorant, debauched[,] and scandalous Ministers.” Protestants, equipped
with this liberty of conscience, were expected to admire their Kings; any sort of rebellion
was the equivalent of Catholic practices, which encouraged their adherents in
“disturb[ing]…their Countrey[….]” Along those lines, Bethel was also certain that
Catholics were the bad subjects, not the Protestants.7
Bethel’s proto-Whig ideology manifested itself notably in his analysis of
England’s international role. His admiration of the United Provinces convinced him that a
mutual alliance with England was best; he reasoned that, particularly, a shared Protestant
faith was an encouragement to his religious compatriots across Europe. “[I]t would be of
great incouragement…to all the Protestant Countries,…and as great a trouble and

7

Slingsby Bethel, The present interest of England stated ([London], 1671), 18,
25, 26, & 27, accessed August 27, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
4

disturbance, to all the Popish Counsels,” wrote Bethel. A shared religion also ought to
fend off any invasions, as any harm done to the United Provinces was not only bad for
England, but advantageous for France and Roman Catholicism. As such, Bethel
considered an Anglo-Dutch alliance a bulwark against both, claiming, “[It is an]
impregnable Fortress.”8
On the proto-Tory side, arguments emerged that promoted the idea that
Dissenters, not necessarily Catholics, were the only threat to Anglicanism about which to
worry. A significant analyzer of the central ideas associated with this proto-Tory
ideology was statesman and writer Edward Hyde, the First Earl of Clarendon, whose
most famous work was his history of the English Civil War, The History of the Rebellion
(originally written between 1646 and 1648, then revised in 1671 before being published
posthumously in 1702). This work, written from the perspective of a Royalist/proto-Tory
who was involved in the English Civil War, listed four major reasons for Hyde’s
adherence to Anglicanism: membership was a matter of his conscience and reason, not
the Churchmen’s; the Church could not exist without bishops; the state government was
dependent on the Church; and there was a lack of certainty of what could replace that
current government. Indeed, Hyde’s major concern was twofold: “to maintain the
government and preserve the law[.]” Hyde was a member of an emerging Cavalier party
which believed that Presbyterians, not Catholics, were more of a threat to Anglicanism.

8

Bethel, 30 & 33.
5

Sufficient evidence seemed to confirm that Presbyterians were intent on weakening the
Anglican Church by “expos[ing] it to so much persecution and oppression….”9
Samuel Parker, a churchman and theologian who strongly opposed Dissenters,
charged Presbyterians (and “Tories,” which meant Irish Catholic rebels at the time) with
“Insolence and Hypocrisie” in his 1673 document, A discourse in vindication of Bp
Bramhall and the clergy of the Church of England from the fanatic charge of popery.
Additionally, Parker called them “Goodly and Rebel-Saints,” whose actions were
insulting to both the English government and religion in general because they appeared to
reflect their perpetrators’ numbers and religiously rebellious behavior. Most significantly,
Parker claimed that that the Dissenters whom he referred to as “Rebel-Saints” committed
the “worst practices,” which were “villanous not only beyond example, but belief.”10 This
statement indicated that, as late as 1673, Dissenters were the only threat within England
about which Cavaliers like Parker worried because externalized Irish Catholics were “the
other.” This pamphlet was likely an early example of how the threat of Catholicism was
starting to get integrated into the threat posed by Dissenters by proto-Tories like Parker.
That year, however, some disturbing news would provide a tipping point for Cavaliers
that caused a shift in anti-Catholic thinking to occur.
In 1673, it transpired that James Stuart, the Duke of York and the future King
James II, revealed his previously covert Catholicism, having been so for three years at
9

Edward Hyde, First Earl of Clarendon, and Paul Seaward, The History of the
Rebellion: A New Selection (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 88 & 89,
accessed August 26, 2019, EBSCOhost.
10

Hyde, 99 & 268; and Samuel Parker, A discourse in vindication of Bp Bramhall
and the clergy of the Church of England from the fanatick charge of popery ([London],
1673), 4, accessed October 17, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
6

this point.11 On March 30th of that year, which was Easter Sunday, Anglicans expressed
their horror at something that the Duke refused to do while at a Church service: he
refused to take the Communion that was expected of everybody who belonged to the
Anglican Church. Diarist John Evelyn, who happened to be attending this service,
expressed his feelings about the Duke’s action: “This…gave exceeding griefe & scandal
to the whole Nation; That the heyre of it, & the sonn of a Martyr for the Protestant
Religion, should apostatize: What the Consequence of this will be God onely knows, &
Wise men dread.”12 Evelyn was shocked that the Duke had the audacity to forsake his
Anglican faith for Catholicism, especially because his father, Charles I, died for the
former faith. He dreadfully anticipated any future happenings regarding this. Indeed, the
Duke would become King James II in 1685, with disastrous results.
The news that the Duke’s religion was Catholicism hastened his removal from his
position as lord high admiral. It also stoked fears of a constitutional crisis that smacked of
Catholic treachery at the same time that Charles II was assisting Catholic aggression on
the Continent.13 The threat of Catholicism that was emerging from France attracted the
attention of Thomas Osborne, a conservative Anglican who began his tenure as Lord
Treasurer in October 1673 and as the Earl of Danby in May 1674. Danby, who was antiFrench, sought to do everything in his power to increase Anglicanism’s positive image.
For example, he arranged the marriage of Mary Stuart to William of Orange, and insisted
11

John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689 (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1991), 66.
12

John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E.S. de Beer, vol. 4, Volume IV
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 7.
13

Bucholz and Key, 292.
7

that they maintained their Protestant faith after they were married. Also, Danby’s support
of William of Orange hastened his ascension to the throne when the latter became King
in 1689. Indeed, Danby’s anti-French sentiment was powerful enough to compel Louis
XIV to attempt curbing his political ambitions.14
Danby also supported the Test Act of 1673, which applied to all English public
workers; it required them to deny transubstantiation (a Catholic doctrine emphasizing the
conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ) and accept communion
in an Anglican service.15 It targeted Catholics and had the support of many future Tories
and Whigs; this suggested that, at that point in time, the proto-Tories were now not just
anti-Dissenter, but also anti-Catholic. This shift reflected their impression that Louis XIV
and James now raised concerns, allowing proto-Tories like Danby and Evelyn to
incorporate them into their “threat to Church” matrix.
Danby was able to convince several Anglican MPs (Members of Parliament) with
his support of the Test Act, but his attempt to introduce the Test Oath of 1675 (which
attempted to maintain Anglicanism and the structure of the English state as they were,
and also hinted that differences were starting to emerge), made him unpopular among
Parliamentarians like Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Ashley, the Earl of Shaftesbury.
Shaftesbury, a minister under Charles II who supported the Test Act (and whose political
ideology, like Bethel’s, also foreshadowed the rise of Whiggism), expressed his
opposition both to the Test Oath and what he perceived to be the growth of arbitrary

14

Bucholz and Key, 293, Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II, 93,
and Spurr, 67.
15

Bucholz and Key, 292.
8

power in England in his 1675 pamphlet, A letter from a person of quality to his friend in
the country. Shaftesbury accused the Test Oath’s creators of wrongdoings such as the
creation of a political clique of conservative Anglicans and Cavaliers, a Church
government based on divine right, and the establishment of arbitrary government. To
accomplish all of this, Parliament became more of a mechanism for increasing money
needed for such arbitrary rule.16
Regarding France and Louis XIV, Shaftesbury feared that the oath required as
part of the Test Oath would constitute a “Service to the Government”: “[I]t…should give
the French King a just Title and Investiture in the Crown of England,…a design by force,
to change the Religion, and make his Government here as Absolute as in France[….]” In
other words, the Test Oath would make the Crown more accessible to Louis XIV by
allowing him both a rank in (and claim to) the English monarchy, the religion become
Catholicism with a French tinge, and the government more absolute. Additionally, he
believed that the Test Oath would serve the growth of arbitrary government in England
because it would expose it at its worst, in the form of a standing army. If Charles II
allowed a standing army to be legal, it would “alter…the whole Law of England, in the
most essential and Fundamental parts of it,…and without effect, whenever the King
pleases.” Ultimately, the Test Oath threatened the “Liberties of the Nation,…[the] Magna
Carta[,] our Properties, and the Establish’d Law and Government of the Nation.”17 In
short, the Test Oath threatened everything about English society that Shaftesbury
16

Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, A letter from a person of quality
to his friend in the country ([London], 1675), 1 & 2, accessed September 24, 2019, Early
English Books Online (EEBO), and Harris, Politics under the Later Stuarts, 72.
17

Shaftesbury, 16, 18, & 20.
9

cherished. It also highlighted the basic aspects of proto-Whig ideology that Bethel and
Shaftesbury shared: the animosity towards Louis XIV and conservative Anglicans, a fear
of arbitrary government, and suspicion of French power under Louis XIV. Additionally,
Shaftesbury accused Danby of using power that he possessed to gradually shift England
in a more absolutist direction.18
Poet and MP Andrew Marvell also highlighted the opposition to Danby’s policies
in his 1677 document, An Account of the Growth of Popery, and Arbitrary Government in
England, & c. Marvell’s document identified a two-pronged design to change England by
making the government more tyrannical and converting the entire country from
Protestantism to Catholicism: “There has now been for diverse Years, a design been
carried on, to change the Lawfull Government of England into an Absolutist Tyranny,
and to convert the established Protestant Religion into down-right Popery.” Marvell
understood Catholic-majority France as a primary example of an “absolutist tranny.” As
an Anglican, Marvell highlighted that Church’s benefits, among which were freedom
from “that Romish Yoak,” which was a large component of Christianity. Although
Marvell was not a clergyman, he understood Anglicanism enough to know that it
represented freedom from a supposedly false religion. For instance, Marvell wrote that
Popery was unequal with “civility,” and that it was entirely absurd. He also claimed that
Popery was only a Christian denomination in its name, not in ideology.19

18

Scott, 374.

19

Andrew Marvell, An account of the growth of popery and arbitrary government
in England ([Amsterdam], 1677), 3 & 5, accessed September 5, 2019, Early English
Books Online (EEBO).
10

In addition to denouncing Catholicism as false and ridiculous, Marvell stated that
Catholic princes were lazy and unable to effectively rule their states, allowing
Catholicism to function as an invitation to slavery under the pretense of religion. For
Marvell, this indicated that Catholics did not act as effective promoters of liberty; rather,
they threatened the political stability of Protestant-controlled parts of Europe (England
included). They were also very far removed from early and primitive Christianity.
Marvell reasoned that the English Church could never become Catholic again, partly
because experimenting with Catholicism had always failed, as witnessed by the historical
examples of Mary I’s reign, the Gunpowder Plot, and the 1641 Massacre in Ireland, the
most recent debacle to date (and a commonly recurring memory for all Protestants). Yet,
people in the English government whom Marvell referred to as both “lawless and
incapable miscreants” and “wicked Traytors” had tried to circumvent maintaining
Protestantism by introducing “French slavery” and “Roman idolatry,” both “Crimes of
the Highest Nature.” Along these lines, Marvell described Louis XIV as an absolutist, the
“Presumptive Monarch of Christendom,” the “Champion of Popery,” and the enemy of
the English “King and Nation.”20
Much like Bethel did in The Present interest of England stated, Marvell called for
warfare against Louis XIV. Most prominently, Marvell stated his case for an AngloDutch alliance. For Marvell, such an alliance “was most expedient,” and something that
Marvell deemed necessary to counter Louis XIV’s “purse and power.”21 Like Bethel’s
ideas, Marvell’s were too premature to identify as “Whiggish,” yet they became essential
20

Marvell, 11, 14, 15, & 16.

21

Marvel, 122.
11

to the formation of that party’s ideology. However, despite Marvell’s compelling case, he
and the other members of Shaftesbury’s group remained a part of England’s political
minority. They needed a catalyst to enable them to spread their message’s contents,
which came in 1678: rumors of a Catholic plot to kill Charles II. At first, hardly any
authority figures noticed this. Yet, after hearing of two successive incidents, the plot
became more firmly established as an idea. Anti-Catholicism would only sharpen amidst
alleged evidence of Catholic militancy, bomb scares, spy sightings, and reports of French
and Spanish landings – all this, despite Catholics constituting “about [one] percent of the
population.”22
1678 was a momentous year in the history of anti-Catholicism in England.
Because of the rumors of a plot to kill the King, the Duke of York’s possible succession
to the throne also became an issue. The latter’s open Catholicism was an additional
contribution to the so-called Exclusion Crisis that soon presented itself in Parliament.
This crisis’s immediate catalyst was Charles II’s dissolution of Parliament in an attempt
to prevent his first minister, Danby, from suffering the risks of exposure of his
involvement in asking Louis XIV for money to block Charles II’s action. When that
backfired, Shaftesbury used this setback as an opportunity to promote his political agenda
across England. This marked the point when the proto-Whigs became the Whigs, and
when the proto-Tories became the Tories, who acquired a reputation for opposing the
Duke of York’s exclusion.23 Now, there existed two political parties, with two different
approaches to anti-Catholicism.

22

Bucholz and Key, 294 & 295.

23

Bucholz and Key, 295, 296, & 297.
12

Some competing pamphlets from the latter half of the Exclusion era in the early
1680’s appeared as dialogues between individual members from both parties. Examples
included Tory Roger L’Estrange’s The Observator (1681) and Whig Edmund
Hickeringill’s The history of Whiggism (1682). The Observator’s dialogue took place
between a Tory “Nobody” and a Whig “Somebody:” for the Tory, the issue was less antiCatholic than anti-Dissenter, while the Whig maintained that anti-Popery was the
problem to confront. For example, in Dialogue #1, “Nobody” blamed the Whigs for
“medling with the Government” and called them “fanatics.” In Dialogue #2, “Nobody”
accused the Whigs like “Somebody” of burning effigies of the Pope instead of nonConformists, which reflected how Tories opposed non-Conformists, such as “Jack
Presbyter.” Also, “Nobody” insisted that the Whigs conspired together to eliminate
Catholic plots, which “Somebody” claimed existed. In Dialogue #3, “Nobody” called
Presbyterians “Plot-teeming” and “Monstrous,” claimed they had “20[,]000 Plots in
[their] Bell[ies]” targeting God, the King, popular liberties, and freedoms, and insisted on
distance from “Heretick Protestants.” After “Somebody” spent most of Dialogue #4
countering “Nobody’s” claims, “Nobody” continued to denounce Whigs in Dialogue #5
as “Ingrateful” for refusing to believe the anti-Papists, and dull for refusing to accept
Tory arguments. Ultimately, “Nobody’s” comments regarding true Dissenters here were
that they were hypocritical – “neither Protestants nor Papists,” but “Protestants” in name
only who viewed all governmental workers as “Papists,” the only people they truly
opposed.24

24

Roger L’Estrange, A new dialogue between some body and no body, or, The
Observator observed ([London], 1681), nos. 1-5, 2, 1, 2, 1 & 2, & 1 & 2, accessed July
17, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
13

In The history of Whiggism, Hickeringill attempted to prove that the Cavaliers
ultimately sided with Charles I, who had, in turn, received the support of the Pope. As a
result, the Roundheads (many of whom were the Whigs’ political ancestors) condemned
Charles I as a traitor to England for acquiescing in this purported wrongdoing. He traced
the Whigs’ origins to the Civil War era, amidst the conflict between the monarchy and
Parliament. He classified the Catholics (and Tories) as Cavaliers, rogues who would not
listen to God, and traitors to Christianity who were morally loose, completely
immoderate, and unholy. As a Whig, Hickeringill emphasized the Irish (Catholic) origin
of the “Tory” slur in analyzing the 1641 Massacre there, claiming it to be a Tory-led
action: “[T]he Tory Cut-throats basely Butcher’d the Protestants, Man, Woman[,] and
Child that they could come at, or durst come at; and they…spared not Man, Woman[,]
nor Child.” Hickeringill warned of the Tories’ objective to dissolve Whiggish
constitutionalism, and established a connection between Catholicism and arbitrary
government, claiming that one could not survive without the other. Hickeringill, in
arguing this, retrospectively blamed Charles I for threatening England, Parliament, and
his subjects, which increased the possibility of Catholicism and arbitrary government in
the long term. Hickeringill wrote of the last point, “The King…[increased] Fears of
Popery and Arbitrary Government.”25
Just as the Whigs used epithets such as “Cavaliers” and “Cut-throats” for the
Tories, the Tories alleged that the Whigs (specifically, the Dissenters who supported
them) were “Phanaticks” and “Popishly Affected.” In historian John Phillips’ 1681 work,

25

Edmund Hickeringill, The history of Whiggism ([London], 1682), 11, 12, 13,
38, 44, 48, & 68, accessed February 12, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
14

The character of a popish successor, the author pointed out the nicknames that Tory
Roger L’Estrange had used to describe Whigs, such as “Phanaticks and Presbyterians.”26
The Tories, indeed, expressed an “abhorrence” towards anything they associated with the
Whigs.27 James Butler, the Duke of Ormond, blamed “Liberty” (representing the Whigs)
for “aspers[ing] Men, and Represent[ing] them to the World under the monstrous and
odious figures of Papists, or Popishly Affected” in his 1682 letter, A letter from His
Grace James Duke of Ormond, for example. In other words, Butler castigated Whigs for
viewing Anglicans as either Catholics, or affiliated with Catholics. Furthermore, Ormond
claimed that Anglicans were much too devoted to religion and the monarchy to cause
damage to both: “[T]hey are known to be too good Protestants, and too Loyal Subjects, to
joyn in the Destruction of the Crown and Church[.]”28
John Nalson, a Tory pamphleteer, also characterized Whigs as fanatics who were
bent on destroying Anglicanism and the monarchy, and as collaborators with Catholics.
Nalson asserted in his 1681 pamphlet, The true Protestants appeal to the city and
countrey, that “All honest men believe the Popish Plot, and have a Detestation, both
against the Principles and Practices of Popery.” This passage indicated that, to Nalson,
only Tories could truly cite the existence of the Popish Plot, whereas Whigs misused it:
“[T]hey are attempting to play the[ir] Old Game again […] the Alteration and Ruine of

26

John Phillips, The character of a popish successor ([London], 1681), 33,
accessed February 12, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
27

Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II, 174.

28

Ormond, James Butler, Duke of, 1610-1688, A letter from His Grace James
Duke of Ormond ([London], 1682), 3, accessed March 12, 2019, Early English Books
Online (EEBO).
15

the Government established both in Church and State.”29 In other words, the Whigs
misused the Plot by attempting to change and destroy the monarchy and the Anglican
Church; they were acting like Catholics in this instance, too, by following in their
footsteps.30
Rather than solving the problems associated with anti-Catholicism, the Civil War,
then the Restoration, only continued to exacerbate them. Indeed, the anti-Catholicism
during the Restoration era produced two political parties, the Tories and the Whigs. By
the time both parties formed amidst the Exclusion Crisis in the late 1670’s, their
respective adherents had spent the decade formulating their ideas. As the 1670’s gave
way to the 1680’s, it was now clear that the Whigs and Tories represented two different
schools of anti-Catholic thought. Shortly afterwards, the accession of James II to the
throne following Charles II’s death in 1685 would challenge the Tories’ ideas because it
brought anti-Catholicism and support of the monarchy into conflict, but it did not really
challenge the Whigs’. The Whigs had always thought a Catholic monarch would be bad,
and he turned out to be bad in almost exactly the ways they predicted. It is to James II’s
controversial reign that the next chapter will turn.

29

John Nalson, The true Protestants appeal to the city and country ([London],
1681), 2, accessed August 12, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
30

Harris, Politics under the Later Stuarts, 99.
16

CHAPTER 2
ANTI-CATHOLICISM BETWEEN 1685 AND 1688: JAMES II’S REIGN
James II became the next King of England in 1685. He remained on the throne
until 1688, when William of Orange and his invasion force deposed him. Although he
was a Catholic, James II was able to win the satisfaction of most Tories by promising to
respect the established Church upon his ascension. Also, James II’s Catholicism initially
seemed rather mild to Tories who shared less-than-positive memories of extreme
Protestant politicians such as Oliver Cromwell and the Earl of Shaftesbury. James II,
however, was not able to win the satisfaction of the Whigs; they asserted their hatred of
him based on his absolutist leanings, Catholicism, and pro-French sentiments.
Particularly, they highlighted his collaboration with Louis XIV in attempting to extirpate
Protestantism and its associated liberties.
While the Whigs claimed that James II was a threat to Protestantism, the Tories
asserted that James II was a good Catholic because he had promised to respect the
established Church upon his ascension to the throne. This marked another stage of
development in Tory anti-Catholic thinking: acceptance of a Catholic monarch as long as
s/he adhered to this promise. Meanwhile, the Tories continued to promote their assertion
that Catholics and Dissenters continued to pose a combined dual threat to the Church.

17

However, in 1687, James II’s Declaration of Indulgence would grant both of those groups
toleration, which was something that had contradicted his promise to maintain Tory
Anglican security. As a result, the Tories claimed that James II was now one of those
Catholics who worked with Dissenters to threaten the Anglican Church – in other words,
it now mattered to Tories that James II was Catholic. Simply put, he was no longer the
champion of the Church. The Whigs, on the other hand, asserted that the Declaration of
Indulgence was the culmination of James II’s attempt to introduce Catholicism into
England, with the assistance of Louis XIV. At this point, the aftermath of the Declaration
of Indulgence’s passing witnessed the Whigs summarizing all of James II’s wrongdoings
during the course of his reign. Anti-Catholicism suffused Whiggish opinion concerning
this subject as 1687 gave way to 1688.
In this chapter, I argue that the Whigs maintained a constant belief that James II
threatened their anti-Catholic ideology, while the Tories changed by believing his
promise to respect the Anglican Church until they perceived him as threatening it in
conjunction with Dissenters. This would indicate that, between 1687 and the end of
James II’s reign, the Tories denounced James II as unequivocally as the Whigs always
had. In doing so, this chapter will analyze sources such as Whiggish pamphlets that
warned of James II’s consequential alliance with Louis XIV of France, and Tory
pamphlets that emphasized loyalty to Anglicanism and James II. Also, this chapter will
detail the anti-Catholicism surrounding the period between the passing of the Declaration
of Indulgence and the ascension of William III and Mary II to the throne. With that
established, it is now time to turn to James II’s coronation in April 1685.

18

As James II’s power took shape in the aftermath of his coronation, the Whigs
found themselves to be the subjects of a monarch who was Catholic, had connections to
Louis XIV, and actively sought to strengthen his absolutist style of ruling. The Whigs
attempted to strike back at James II as early as they could into his reign. They did so in
June 1685, under the leadership of James Scott, the First Duke of Monmouth, who
arrived from the United Provinces of the Netherlands to launch a rebellion against James
II. Monmouth’s army included not just 150 soldiers, but tradesmen and farmers, all of
whom were of the Protestant faith.31
Monmouth’s declaration, The declaration of James Duke of Monmouth, the
noblemen, gentlemen & others, particularly claimed James II to be a “Usurper” whose
reign so far “hath been but one continued conspiracy against the Reformed Religion, &
rights of the Nation.” Monmouth then listed a long selection of wrongdoings that James
II allegedly committed during the reign of Charles II, all of them threatening to both
England and Protestantism. Among them were setting London on fire, “Instigating a
confederacy with France,” waging war against the United Provinces, contributing to the
Popish Plot of 1678, “forging Treason against Protestants,” and dissolving Parliaments to
avoid any accusations of criminal activity. All of these crimes, Monmouth asserted, were
“so black and horrid,” and “so ruinous & destructive to Religion, and the Kingdome[….]”
Worse, James II accomplished all this “in defiance of all the Laws & Statutes of the
Realme[.]”32

31

Bucholz and Key, 300 & 301.

32

Monmouth, James Scott, Duke of, 1649-1685, The declaration of James Duke
of Monmouth, the noblemen, gentlemen & others ([London], 1685), 2, accessed
September 9, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
19

Monmouth’s rebellion ended in defeat almost as quickly as it began, thanks to
James II’s more organized and loyal force that he assembled as a way of counteracting it.
As a result of Monmouth’s defeat, more than three-hundred perpetrators faced execution
at the hands of George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys (the King’s lord chief justice).33 An
anonymous Tory pamphlet entitled The Arraignment and condemnation of the late rebels
in the West, in true party fashion, condemned the Whigs as “Phanaticks,” “Pests of
Government,” “despisers of Kingly Power,” “Devourers of the Church,” and “c[onti]nual
broachers of Sedition and Mutiny,” and held that the Whigs’ anti-Catholicism only
smacked of a plot “to Murther the [King], Prophane [Religion], and Subvert the
[Government].” Particularly, the Whigs’ cause was a pretended one to promote their
religion, maintain their liberties, and demote a Catholic King who allegedly promoted the
“needless fears of Popery and Arbitrary Government” in the name of a “most Bloudy and
Unnatural Rebellion.”34
Approximately six months after James II’s coronation, his Whiggish subjects took
notice of France’s continued aggression, mainly as Louis XIV accomplished the
revocation of the Edict of Nantes. This piece of legislation, which French King Henry IV
passed in 1598, had given protection to Huguenots (French Calvinists). Particularly, this
was aggression on a confessional (politico-religious) level, and managed to convince
Whigs that Louis XIV was a monstrous anti-Protestant.35 This also coincided with fears

33

Bucholz and Key, 301.

34

Anonymous, The Arraignment and condemnation of the late rebels in the West
([London], 1685), 2-3, accessed March 19, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
35

Scott, 209-10.
20

that Louis XIV was attempting to convince James II to collaborate with him in order to
subvert England’s security and faith. An anonymous Whig pamphlet from 1686 entitled
The Designs of France against England and Holland discovered warned of this attempt,
“[H]e has hitherto spar’d nothing, and is still turning every stone, to…engage [James
II]…to be an idle, unconcern’d Spectator of the horrid Tragedy the French King acts
upon the Theatre of Europe.”36 In other words, the author accused James II of standing by
and doing nothing to stop Louis’s conquests; this was especially true when it came to
Continental Europe.
The author, a Whig, also blamed Louis XIV for committing offenses such as
pitting various Protestant sects against each other, and James II for so thoroughly falling
under Louis XIV’s influence that he sought to destroy the Church of England by
attracting its bishops to Catholicism and allowing them to advance its treasonous cause:
“[T]he Bishops favored Popery, and would not fail to prove turncoats, as soon as a
favourable Opportunity should be offer[’]d them….” Moreover, in the aftermath of James
II’s conversion to Catholicism some years ago, Louis XIV would undoubtedly have
influenced the latter’s actions regarding Anglicanism, according to the author: “But now
since the King of England has thought good to change his Religion, France also has
alter’d his Battery, and turn’d all his Great guns against the Church of England.”
Ultimately, the sectarian conflicts would overtake James II’s reign to a point where the
monarch would have no choice other than to focus only on Britain and make him less
likely to intervene in continental affairs, as a result. Amidst all this, widespread anger at

36

Anonymous, The Designs of France against England and Holland discovered
([n.p.], 1686), 2, accessed March 21, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
21

James II’s policies would make it more difficult to allow him to carry them out
effectively: “[A]t home,…he is like to meet with so many Crossings and Thwartings of
the Designs he is carrying on, that he will find it a hard matter to break through them, and
accomplish the thing he aims at, and so zealously affects.”37 In short, James II would
encounter opposition to his plans for accomplishing his ultimate goal of re-Catholicizing
England.
On the same page of the document where he predicted that James II would face
massive resistance at home, the author also called for an alliance with the United
Provinces. Like Slingsby Bethel had in his 1671 pamphlet, The present interest of
England stated, the author of The Designs of France against England and Holland
discovered claimed that such an alliance would not only represent a “League” and a
“right understanding and good Correspondence between those two Governments, to
oppose all Powers that would invade and trouble the Peace of Christendom,” but a
significant chance to convince other “States” to “most gladly embrace the Proposal.”
However, the author also knew that not only would Louis XIV and James II collaborate
further to prevent this from happening, but that Louis XIV never wanted this to happen:
“This indeed is the thing, which France, would be very loth to see, because the hearty
Union of these two Governments, would in all probability put a stop to the French
king[’]s understandings…[and] design–”38 In short, any acceptance of an Anglo-Dutch
alliance would be harmful to Louis XIV’s strategies.

37

Anon., The Designs of France against England and Holland discovered, 3.

38

Anon., The Designs of France against England and Holland discovered, 3-4.
22

On the Tory side, the arguments in favor of a strong Anglican Church willing to
struggle against Catholics and Dissenters, as well as loyalty to James II, still carried
significance for their adherents in 1686. The Tories still castigated these two religious
groups, yet it made sense to remain loyal to James because his promise to respect the
established Church still remained in effect one year into his reign, allowing James II’s
Tory subjects to maintain their satisfaction with him. An anonymous Tory pamphlet
entitled A second remonstrance by way of address from the Church of England, to both
Houses of Parliament, claimed that James II secured his subjects with his initial promise
to respect the Anglican Church – but only if his subjects reciprocated this respect. The
author wrote of this, “We find our selves safely sheltred under the promise of Our most
Great and Gracious Soveraign…[b]ut it behooves us to reflect, this promise was
Conditional, if we were true to Monarchy.”39 Particularly, it did not matter that James II
adhered to Catholicism as long as he had convictions steeped in religion. Also, whereas
Whigs accused James II of working with Louis XIV in order to overthrow Protestantism
during this time, Tories accused Dissenters and Catholics of attempting to do the same
with Anglicanism. As late as 1686, they still called Dissenters names such as “Fanatics.”
An author writing under the name of Philemon Angell (“lover of angels”)
explained in his pamphlet, The way of peace: or, A disclosure of the dangerous principles
and practices of some pretended Protestants, that non-conforming Protestants still
represented a danger to Anglicanism. Angell asked, “Now how dangerous and destructive
the Presbyterian and Phanatick Principles and Practices…are? How subversive of all

39

Anonymous, A Second remonstrance by way of address from the Church of
England, to both houses of Parliament ([London?], 1686), 2, accessed April 16, 2019,
Early English Books Online (EEBO).
23

Government, Order, and Peace in the World? And how contrary to the…true Protestant
Church of England[…]?,” before answering, “[They are] more fit to be abominated and
detested, and exploded out of the Christian world, than cherished and countenanced.”
Angell blamed Catholics, especially Jesuits, for enabling Dissenters to pursue them and
upend Anglicanism; moreover, it was not that Tories were suddenly okay with Catholics,
but it was that they believed James’s promises to defend the Church. He wrote of this,
“[T]hese men of such intolerable and insolent spirits and principles are now so earnest in
prosecution of the Romanists, from the worst of whom (viz. the Jesuits) they take their
principles and practices[.]”40
Thomas Cartwright, a bishop and diarist, & the Dean of Ripon at the time,
celebrated the monarch in his sermon entitled A sermon preached upon the anniversary
solemnity of the happy inauguration of our dread soveraign Lord King James II. This
document claimed that not only was it appropriate “to Celebrate, according to the
Laudable and Religions Practice of good Subjects in former Ages,…our Gracious
Soveraign Lord King JAMES the Second,” but that non-Conformists were “hot-spurs”
and “Conspira[tours],” as well as adherents of religion prone “to…Madness.” In this
selection, Cartwright acknowledged that the “Laudable and Religions Practice” was
obedience to the King. Cartwright also called Dissenters “Blood-thirsty Men, being not
only agreeable to their Anti-Monarchical and Anti-Episcopal Principles; but, in truth,
inseparable from them.” For Cartwright, not only were Dissenters allegedly against the

40

Philemon Angell, The way of peace: or, A disclosure of the dangerous
principles and practices of some pretended Protestants ([London], 1686), 7-8, accessed
March 23, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).

24

monarchy and Anglicanism, they sought no intentions to withdraw from these
animosities. On the other hand, Cartwright claimed of Anglicanism, “[Our Religion] sets
the Crown fast and easie upon the King’s Head, without Catechising him.” In other
words, Anglicanism not only secured James II’s crown, but freed him from any inquiries
into his religion. This claim reflected the fact that Anglicanism secured James II by
leaving him only that choice of religion. It also made other religions unable to compete
with it for supremacy. Finally, this claim seemed to be based in the fact that, although
James II was Catholic and not Protestant, he was a rightful monarch who respected his
subjects and treated them as if they were respectful of him.41
Simon Patrick, a theologian and the then-Dean of Peterborough, claimed in his
1686 sermon Ad testimonium, that there was required to be this sense of mutual respect
between the way that James II’s subjects and the Church prayed for him: “We must pray
for the King in that sense that the Church prays for him[…].” Patrick then went on to list
why James II was considered the rightful King for that position: he had “Wisdom and
Understanding” that allowed him to rule and made him “well[-]qualified for Empire,”
was dedicated to his task, was aware of what justice meant, could solve problems
effectively (especially the Monmouth Rebellion), and, finally, “was a Man of
extraordinary Piety and Devotion; in this he shewed himself to be the true Son of Holy
David.”42 Notably, Patrick made no mention of the King’s Catholicism, unlike
Cartwright. All that mattered was that James II was religious, and would seek to uphold
41

Thomas Cartwright, A sermon preached upon the anniversary solemnity of the
happy inauguration of our dread sovereign Lord King James II ([London], 1686), 1-2,
13, & 15, accessed July 18, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
42

Simon Patrick, Ad testimonium ([London], 1686), 15, 19, 20, 21, & 22,
accessed March 23, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
25

his subjects’ Anglican settlement. Like Cartwright, however, Patrick felt that there was
no reason to criticize the King’s faith.
In 1687, James II passed his Declaration of Indulgence, which finally alienated
the Tories by granting tolerance to both Catholics and Dissenters. A pro-Declaration
author writing as a “Member of the Church of England” described that opposition in his
1687 document, An answer from the country to a late letter to a dissenter upon occassion
of His Majesties late gracious declaration of indulgence. The author claimed that the
majority of Tory Anglicans viewed the Declaration of Indulgence as a mistake because it
appeared to extinguish their duties, gave special treatment to Dissenters who had
previously engaged in acts of destruction, and “suggested [an] enlarge[ment] [of] the
Roman Catholick Church.” As a result, Anglican leaders within this camp sought to do
everything to prevent James II from granting any more sorts of preferences to the Roman
Catholics. Unfortunately for them, James II’s ultimate wish was for both Dissenters and
Catholics to achieve freedom from the religious laws that had previously restricted them,
and not just temporarily. The author explained how James II sought to accomplish this:
“To Establish this, consultations are had; leading Men among the Dissenters are treated
with, great promises are made, that Persecution against them shall cease….” The
assistance of Dutch and Dissenting English pamphlets would amplify concerns about
Catholicism and the Church of England, and “not only declaim against the abrogating of
all Penal Laws, but the Dispensing Power, likewise, as tending to the shaking all other
Laws, even those of Property[.]” Ultimately, the possibility that James II would repeal the
use of dispensing power particularly worried Tories whom the author classified as critics

26

of the Declaration of Indulgence because it would mean that all laws, especially those
pertaining to property, would also become irrelevant.43
This evidence that the author presented had indicated that, at that point in time,
the Tories finally asserted that James II had not only squandered opportunities to
maintain their approval, but failed to respect their Church. Instead, James II’s decision to
convince Catholics and Dissenters to approve his policies struck at two fundamental Tory
beliefs – loyalty to the King, often unquestionable, and total allegiance to Anglicanism –
which shook the Tories’ faith in James II, at last.44 The Tories now joined the Whigs in
distrusting James II, although their opposing political views still dictated their antiCatholicism in this instance. Whereas the Tories disliked James II after April 1687
because of fears he would grant religious freedom to both Dissenters and Catholics as a
consequence of the Declaration of Indulgence, the Whigs disliked James II since the
beginning of his reign because he violated their principles – strict anti-Catholicism,
toleration of all Protestants, Francophobia, and pro-Dutch sentiment. In short, Whig/Tory
anti-Catholic divides still remained quite relevant.
Anti-Catholic fears by both sides who were concerned about James II’s
Declaration of Indulgence also asserted themselves in spring 1688. At that time, seven
Anglican bishops suffered imprisonment for publicly refusing to read it from the pulpit.
This group included William Sancroft, the Tory Archbishop of Canterbury, who made his
43

Bucholz and Key, 303, and Member of the Church of England, An answer from
the country to a late letter to a dissenter upon occassion of His Majesties late gracious
declaration of indulgence by a member of the Church of England ([London], 1687), 5,
accessed August 5, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
44

Steven C. A. Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2009), 187, accessed July 19, 2019, EBSCOhost.
27

reasons for opposing the Declaration of Indulgence noted in his document (anonymously
published) entitled A Dialogue between the Arch-B. of C. and the Bishop of Heref.
Sancroft listed five main reasons for opposing the Declaration of Indulgence. Among
them was his refusal to associate with the Catholics and Dissenters, whom he claimed
would overshadow his fellow Anglicans. As Sancroft explained, “[W]e would not joyn
with the Papists (as the Dissenter[s] do at this day) and the giddy-headed multitude we
knew well enough would…cry us up to the Skies[….]” Moreover, Sancroft claimed that,
if it were not for Anglicans’ existence, every Christian all over England would be a
Catholic: “[W]e should all be Papists if it were not for such as these.”45
The Whigs, including the Dissenters who supported them, asserted that James II
had never intended to end religious persecution with the passing of his Declaration of
Indulgence; moreover, the Declaration of Indulgence did not win over Whigs because
they perceived it as part of James’s larger Catholic plot to destroy liberty and instill
absolutism. This emphasized what Whig anti-Catholicism was all about for its followers.
Presbyterians, Whiggish Anglicans, Independents (Congregationalists), Baptists,
Quakers, and Whiggish politicians and commentators all expressed their opposition to
this unpopular document. For example, George Trosse, a Non-Conformist minister from
Exeter, not only viewed the Declaration of Indulgence as “‘against [the] law,” but also
claimed “the design of the King was to withdraw the people from the public, and so to
weaken the party of the Church of England, whom if he had once brought into contempt,
the Dissenters would have been crushed.” In other words, Trosse reasoned that James II’s
45

Anonymous, A Dialogue between the Arch-B. of C. and the Bishop of Heref.
([London], 1688), 2, accessed July 18, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO), and
Bucholz and Key, 304.
28

intentions concerning the Declaration of Indulgence were curbing his subjects’
involvement in public life and weakening the Tories, in turn, which would cause them to
massacre all of England’s Dissenters if James II had provoked them enough. Another
Dissenting sermon “warned against ‘grounding thy expectations upon absolute power.”46
A Whiggish pamphlet from 1688, entitled An account of the pretended Prince of
Wales, claimed that James II and Louis XIV both worked together to subjugate the
former’s kingdoms to Rome and make England more absolute. The author wrote of the
Catholic Church’s attempts to accomplish this, “[S]he thought there could be no way
more effectual, then strictly to unite the two Princes, now both of the same Religion
together that with united Strength and Treasure, they might…be enabled to bring about
their Grand Design.” This “Grand Design” included the extirpation of the Protestant faith,
the re-introduction of Catholicism into England, and James II’s attempts to introduce
absolutism into England. Also, James II’s attempts to introduce absolutism into England
mirrored Louis XIV’s, including the modification “[of] all the Officers and Magistrates
of the Kingdom under Subjection to Absolute Will and Pleasure.” In other words, James
II had attempted, like Louis XIV, to make these positions more absolute. Amidst this
moment of crisis for English Protestantism, the author predicted that the joint ascension
of Mary Stuart and William of Orange would cause the Catholic officers in England to
scare them to the point of attempting to thwart this ascension. The author wrote of this,
“[I]t did no less turmoil and perplex the Councils and Deliberations of the Papish with

46

Anonymous, “Joshua Sager’s Sermon Notes” (1687/88), Add. 54185, fol. 59v,
British Library (BL), London; and A. W. Brink, ed., The Life of the Reverend Mr. George
Trosse (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1974), 125 & 129-30, quoted in
Pincus, 202-3.
29

Terror and Consternation; which made them enter into various Consultations to ward off
this Threatening Opposition to their Designs.” This indicated that Catholics in England,
in addition to Louis XIV, would be just as afraid of William and Mary.47
By the end of James II’s reign, another anonymous Whig pamphlet entitled An
account of the reasons of the nobility and gentry’s invitation of His Highness the Prince
of Orange into England symbolized James II’s wrongdoings throughout his reign.
Among the offenses were the King’s misusing of liberty of conscience in order to
promote Catholicism above Protestantism, supplying of his subjects’ rights to the Pope,
and contribution to a (French) Catholic-rooted Design to extirpate Protestantism. The
author also chose to overlook the wrongdoings of Catholic monarchs who were not Louis
XIV, claiming that Louis XIV’s role in this Design was despicable due to its publicity:
“The instance alone of the French King is enough to be named instead of all, because he
hath owned and published to the whole World his part in that Design[….]” Whig William
Cavendish, the Earl of Devonshire, claimed that James II’s power would make Whigs
“like[ly] to suffer.” Tory Thomas Osborne, the Earl of Danby, wrote in September 1688,
“I had rather lose my life in the field than live under an arbitrary power, and see [the
King change] our laws and religion[….]”48 All of these passages indicated that, not only

47

Anonymous, An account of the pretended Prince of Wales ([London], 1688), 6,
accessed April 14, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
48

Anonymous, An account of the reasons of the nobility and gentry’s invitation of
His Highness the Prince of Orange into England ([London], 1688), 4 & 6, accessed April
16, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO); William Cavendish, Earl of Devonshire,
to (Prince) William, July 10, 1688, King William’s Chest, National Archives (NA), Kew
Gardens, UK; and Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby, to Philip Stanhope, Earl of
Chesterfield, [September] 1688, in Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds,
1632-1712, vol. 2, ed. Andrew Browning (Glasgow: Jackson, Son, 1944), 135, quoted in
Pincus, 212.
30

was James II capable of trying anything at this point to maintain his power, but that any
recovery of it would render his position impregnable, and prevent the joint monarchy
from assuming its power in England, which it did in fall 1688. In April 1689, William
and Mary Stuart became the newly joint King and Queen of England.
In conclusion, James II’s reign highlighted everything that gave credence to both
Whiggish and Toryish anti-Catholicism – his absolutist leanings, pro-French sentiments,
and strict Catholicism for the Whigs, and his abandonment of Anglican security,
Declaration of Indulgence, and failure to respect Anglicanism for the Tories. Although he
originally promised to maintain this respect, his subjects did not uniformly reciprocate it,
especially the Whigs. The Tories, on the other hand, maintained their confidence in
James II to respect the Anglican Church until he passed his Declaration of Indulgence
during his third year in power. As the Declaration of Indulgence granted special religious
preferences to both their Catholic and Dissenter enemies, the Tories’ confidence in James
II evaporated. Whig-aligned Dissenters not only felt convinced that the Declaration of
Indulgence would specifically harm them, but that it was more evidence of a design
attempted against them, with Louis XIV at its front and center. Worse, Louis XIV was
willingly assisting James II in this. Criticism of both monarchs contributed to calls for
William of Orange to invade England, and also became a major theme of antiCatholicism during William III’s reign, especially in the context of calls to launch
warfare against Louis XIV. It is to these aspects of anti-Catholicism in England to which
Chapter Three will turn next.

31

CHAPTER 3
ANTI-CATHOLICISM, WILLIAM III-STYLE
William III and Mary II ruled as joint King and Queen of England until 1694
(when Mary II died), leaving her husband to rule alone until his death eight years later. A
collaborative group of Whigs and Tories alike had placed William III on the throne;
however, both parties continued to engage in propaganda warfare that highlighted their
different approaches to anti-Catholicism. Particularly, the war that William launched
against Louis XIV underscored these anti-Catholic divides. Whigs were more likely to
encourage William III in maintaining anti-Catholic rhetoric against Louis XIV, stopping
Louis XIV’s ambitions, and including all Protestants in his campaign that he launched
upon his ascension. Tories, on the other hand, were more likely to agree that William III
was another threat to their anti-Catholic ideology, prompting them to downplay his war
against France. In his reign, this influenced how they approached anti-Catholicism, which
now consisted of three approaches with three corresponding factions: the Traditionalists,
who concentrated on Catholics and Dissenters as a combined threat to Anglicanism, the
Revivalists, who returned to pre-Exclusion Crisis ideas that only Dissenters were a threat,
and the Jacobites, who supported James II to one degree or another. All told, the

32

Tories’ threefold approach hinted how fragmented their anti-Catholicism had grown
during William III’s reign, in contrast to the Whigs’.
Particularly, the Tory documents that appeared during William III’s reign
reflected how fragmented the party’s anti-Catholicism was becoming. For example, an
anonymous Traditionalist document entitled Englands crisis, or, The world well mended,
accused William III of reintroducing Catholicism into England and attempting to abolish
Anglicanism in place of Calvinism. Also, the document openly advocated for the
restoration of James II, indicating that the author was a Jacobite. Nathaniel Johnston, a
Revivalist and High Tory political theorist, claimed that only Presbyterians were a threat
to Anglicanism in his pamphlet, The dear bargain. Or, A true representation of the state
of the English nation under the Dutch. In doing so, Johnston highlighted an example of
pre-Exclusion Crisis thought which claimed that Dissenters were the only threat to
Anglicanism. An anonymous Jacobite document entitled The character of a Williamite
labelled Whigs as Catholic-leaning Protestant supporters of William III, which was the
Jacobites’ response to the Whigs’ claim that all Tories committed treason by allegedly
supporting James II, as this chapter will show.
In this chapter, I argue that, between 1689 and 1693, Whiggish anti-Catholic
pamphlets unanimously justified William III’s war against France and alleged that Tories
were secretly pro-Catholic Jacobites, while Toryish anti-Catholic pamphlets highlighted
an ideology now fragmented into three positions as a response to William III’s presence.
The content of those writings was indicative of whatever party the author of a particular
document supported. Whigs were more likely to argue that William III was responsible
for stopping Louis XIV, that Louis XIV and James II were guilty of attempting to make

33

England absolute and Catholic, and Tories were all secretly pro-Catholic Jacobites.
Tories, on the other hand, were more likely to argue either of the following: that
Catholics and Dissenters threatened Anglicanism (Traditionalist), only Dissenters
threatened Anglicanism (Revivalist), or that James II’s restoration was the proper action
to take (Jacobite). Also, the Tory faction that adhered to Jacobitism argued that Whigs
were Catholic-leaning supporters of William III. This propaganda ensured that Whigs and
Tories would remain divided in their anti-Catholicism for the remainder of William III’s
reign and decades after it ended. In investigating this propaganda warfare, this chapter
will analyze Whiggish pamphlets that promoted their cause above the Tories’ and
Toryish pamphlets that did the same. With that established, it is now time to turn to 1689,
William III’s first year.
As William III’s reign commenced, anti-Catholic divides between Whigs and
Tories soon re-emerged. The only agreement they shared was their belief that James II
needed to go. Indeed, according to Steven C. A. Pincus in 1688, these anti-Catholic
divides characterized the early years of William III’s reign, not unity. While Tories
advocated for a more conservative, Anglican society, the Whigs wanted a more liberal
and transformative one.49 Yet, under William III, the Tories faced a predicament: their
participation in bringing him to the throne contradicted their principles regarding Church.
For example, they had placed a non-Anglican King on the throne; particularly, that was

49

Steven C. A. Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2009), 278-9, accessed July 24, 2019, EBSCOhost.
34

an issue because the consecutive matter of the ascension of another non-Anglican King to
the throne made Tories dread another period of suffering similar to that under James II.50
However, as a pro-Dutch/anti-French (or pro-Protestant) party, Whiggish
pamphleteers wholeheartedly urged their new King to preserve their religion and protect
them from Louis XIV’s aggression. The King eagerly spearheaded this Whiggish
propaganda. On May 7th, 1689, William III issued a proclamation, entitled Their
Majesties declaration against the French King, which specifically cited the criminal acts
that Louis XIV had committed. Among them were invading the Holy Roman Empire,
destroying other countries, and using his armies to kill their inhabitants. William III also
accused Louis XIV of launching warfare against England’s allies and defying treaties the
Crown guarded. William III then declared it essential to create an anti-French alliance to
counteract Louis XIV’s Design, stating, “We can do no less than Joyn with our Allies in
opposing the Designs of the French King, as the Disturber of the Peace, and the Common
Enemy of the Christian World.”51 In other words, Louis XIV’s Designs included
interrupting peace and presenting a threat to Christianity, as William III viewed it.
Whig commentator P. B., in his 1689 document, The Means to Free Europe from
the French Usurpation, expected William III to rule in the name of Christianity:
“…[T]here was requir’d to be sitting on the Throne,…a Disinterested Prince, Zealous of
the Glory of God, and the good of Christendom.” Additionally, P. B. expected William
III to avenge Louis XIV’s actions that the latter “had been highly provok’d by
50

Bucholz and Key, 322.

51

England and Wales, Sovereign (1689-1694 : William and Mary), Their
majesties declaration against the French King ([London], 1689), 1, accessed April 1,
2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
35

France[.]”52Dissenter (Presbyterian) writer Daniel Defoe’s The Advantages of the Present
Settlement (1689) proclaimed that both the monarchy and the people had a common
cause: a devotion to the Protestant religion, “for which both have an equal Zeal.” Indeed,
Defoe proclaimed that religion, “the best of all things,” was essential to English
Protestants. Also, Defoe specified that the English Protestant Churches ensured the
permanent security of Protestantism as a whole: “It’s well known that these churches of
Great Britain and Ireland, and more particularly that of England, have been…the Bulwark
of the Protestant Religion in general.” Defoe then understood Protestant security to be
threatened if Catholicism were to return to England.53
The Whigs’ views of Louis XIV certainly had not changed. Anglican minister
William Wake, who was close with William III, claimed that the King was the object of
fear of Louis XIV. More specifically, the former was the “Scourge and Terror of the
Universal Enemy of Truth, Peace, Religion, Nature: In short, of all the common Laws
and Rights of God and of all Mankind.”54 Wake hoped for everyone in England to accept
the new settlement, with only those who desired destruction choosing to have regretted it.
Daniel Defoe, in The Advantages of the Present Settlement, claimed of Louis XIV, “[H]is
Cruelty to [Protestants] hath far surpassed all Heathen Barbarity.”55 The author of an

52

P. B., The Means to Free Europe from the French Usurpation ([London],
1689), 44, accessed April 1, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
53

Daniel Defoe, The Advantages of the Present Settlement ([London], 1689), 28,
33, & 34, accessed April 1, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
54

William Wake, A sermon preach’d before the honourable House of Commons
([London], 1689), 32, accessed April 1, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
55

Defoe, The Advantages of the Present Settlement, 11.
36

anonymously penned pamphlet entitled The case of the people of England in their present
circumstances considered called Louis XIV an “Old Enemy of the English Nation, one
who desires nothing more than to destroy, and ruine the People; [and] to change and
subvert their Laws, and…Religion[….]”56
Whiggish pamphlets from this era also accused James II of covertly supporting
Louis XIV. Defoe accused both James II and Louis XIV of collaborating to establish a
“Private League” that attempted to subvert Protestantism in his British kingdoms and for
conspiring with each other to accomplish this goal.57 P. B. noted that, ultimately, Louis
XIV was making them dependent on France, and reasoned that Louis XIV had long
hoped for a Catholic to inherit the English throne, especially one under his tutelage. As a
result, James II (while still the Duke of York) would fall under Louis XIV’s spell.58 An
anonymously penned source, entitled A Brief account of the nullity of King James’s title
and of the obligation of the present oaths of allegiance, contained evidence that James II
aligned himself with French Catholicism and absolutism – “the declared Enemies of our
Government” – to overturn English laws, expel all “Lawful Members of the
Government” because of their opposing viewpoints, amend the English Constitution to
accomplish the destruction of English laws, liberty, and property, and establish his
authority to increase his absolute power, and making his subjects essentially his slaves.
Ultimately, the author declared that James II was unqualified to be an English monarch:
56

Anonymous, The case of the people of England in their present circumstances
considered ([London], 1689), 2-3, accessed April 1, 2019, Early English Books Online
(EEBO).
57

Defoe, The Advantages of the Present Settlement, 8.

58

P. B., 25.
37

“[T]he Essential Qualifications of an English Monarch could not be found in him; his
Principles were utterly opposite and inconsistent; & therefore…he was [i]ncapable to be
the true and Rightful King[…].”59
Another anonymously penned pamphlet, entitled Good and seasonable advice to
the male-contents in England, contained the claim that government ceased to function
properly under James II: “[W]hen the King would Govern no longer as a King of
England, then sure his Government ceased[.]” The author of this pamphlet, who was
Anglican, also criticized James II for “alienating his Kingdom, and putting himself under
the conduct of a Foreign Prince, who is the greatest Enemy to our Church and Nation[.]”
Furthermore, the author expressed suspicion of James II’s intention of coming back to
England with French soldiers and upending the Anglican Church. The author claimed
that James II’s “Conscience [wa]s managed by a hot-brain’d Jesuit.” Finally, the author
warned of what would happen if James II were to return: “That if he regains his
Kingdoms, the whole Design of Popery and Arbitrary Government, shall return upon us
with more Fury than ever[.]”60 According to the author, a relapse under James II, in short,
would have been even worse than the first reign. Defoe echoed this in The Advantages of
the Present Settlement, claiming that such a relapse would exceed the miserable
conditions under James II’s initial reign.61

59

Anonymous, A Brief account of the nullity of King James’s title and of the
obligation of the present oaths of allegiance ([London], 1689), 7, accessed April 1, 2019,
Early English Books Online (EEBO).
60

Anonymous, Good and seasonable advice to the male-contents in England
([London], 1689), 2, 3, & 4, accessed April 1, 2019, Early English Books Online
(EEBO).
61

Defoe, The Advantages of the Present Settlement, 34.
38

In his 1689 poem, An heroick poem upon the late expedition of His Majesty, to
rescue England from popery, tyranny, and arbitrary government, a Whig-affiliated
controversialist named John Tutchin claimed that England, under James II, “Felt such
Tyrannick Force without Redress, That turn’d her Eden [in]to a Wilderness.” In other
words, James II’s reign was so tyrannical and unjust that he converted England’s paradise
into a wasteland. Furthermore, Tutchin claimed that James II exchanged the Protestant
churches in England for a religion that worshipped “Wooden Gods and far more Wooden
Priests.” In other words, Tutchin asserted that there were two things wrong with
Catholicism: that its adherents worshipped multiple gods instead of just one, and that
their objects of worship and religious leaders were ignorant, in contrast to their Protestant
counterparts. The same applied to all judges, lawyers, and statesmen during James II’s
reign. Tutchin accused the lawyers serving James II of stripping English law of its
“Saving…Power [in exchange for] destroying Power,” substituting tyranny in place of
freedom, and contributing to the enslavement of James II’s subjects. Only William III,
Tutchin claimed, could “Threat Destruction to the Tyrant State.”62
Simultaneously, some Tories denounced William III in the same way that Whigs
had denounced James II, asserting that the Calvinist monarch strengthened the “Tyrant
State” that Whigs such as Tutchin had feared. In a Traditionalist Tory (anti-Calvinist and
anti-Catholic) document from 1689 entitled Englands crisis, or, The world well mended,
the anonymous author asserted that accepting the rule of a Dutch-born monarch like

62

John Tutchin, An heroick poem upon the late expedition of His Majesty, to
rescue England from popery, tyranny, and arbitrary government ([London], 1689), 4,
accessed July 22, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
39

William III was equivalent to madness: “Now for us to put the Government into the
Hands of these Men, who for several Ages have constantly made it their Business
to…make them the Protectors of our Religion,…is such an Instance of a
deplorable…Madness[….]” In other words, it would be madness because William III and
his Dutch compatriots’ Calvinism made them unqualified to secure the Tories’
Anglicanism. The author also claimed William III to be a pretend English ruler – one
who would only corrupt the kingdoms he ruled with his foreign status.63
Additionally, the author conflated William III’s liberation of England with the
reintroduction of Catholicism into England: “He has a Popish Army commanded by
Popish Officers, and Papists go in great Numbers to Mass, at several Chappels, as openly
as when King James was here, and with a non Obstance to all our Laws[….]” In other
words, the author asserted his dislike of William III by using anti-Catholicism to
communicate disapproval of the King’s allegedly Catholic military force, as well as a
spike in Catholics’ free and open attendance of Mass akin to that under James II, despite
William III’s disregard of the laws that Tories cherished. Particularly, the author accused
William III of attempting to abolish the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian Church of
Scotland (that nation’s variant of Anglicanism and Church, which did change from
Episcopalian to Presbyterian in 1689), and it was clear the author hated the French as
much as the Dutch: “[W]e may not need to be beholden to the French whom we hate, for
bringing in the King whom we love; and may we make hast to deliver our selves from the
impending Mischief of a Dutch Conquest.” This was a reference to James II, making this

63

Anonymous, Englands crisis, or, The World well mended ([London], 1689), 1,
accessed April 2, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
40

document a Jacobite tract; to the author, James II symbolized a “good Cause,” and would
convince his English supporters to eventually overthrow William III’s government,
restore James II’s, and ensure that James II promised he would “keep his Word.”64
Revivalist (anti-Dissenter) and High Tory political theorist Nathaniel Johnston
wrote in his 1689 pamphlet, The dear bargain. Or, A true representation of the state of
the English nation under the Dutch, that the Anglican Church faced danger not from the
Catholics, but from the Presbyterians. Particularly, Johnson claimed that both the Dutch
and the French Huguenots were assisting the Presbyterians, especially in restoring that
faith in Scotland and England; amidst this, the Presbyterians basically became “stand-in”
Catholics. Johnston wrote of this, “The[y] indeed have…drive[n] out the Papist, but they
have got themselves into his Place[.]” In other words, the Presbyterians may have helped
depose James II and his Catholic henchmen, but they acquired the Catholics’ dangerous
behavior; this was an example of Tories returning to pre-Exclusion Crisis ideas that only
the Presbyterians were a threat. Alongside this line of thinking, Johnston claimed that the
Dissenters would generally “like[ly]…make another type of War than the Papists
could[.]” This type of warfare would involve the Presbyterians’ acquisition of access to
the English government, schools, and Anglican churches; Johnston also blamed
Dissenters, William III specifically, for invading England to “thereby divert King James
from assisting France.” This indicated that Johnston despised William III because the
latter favored warfare against France, whereas Johnston did not.65

64

Anon., Englands crisis, or, The World well mended, 1-2.

65

Nathaniel Johnston, The dear bargain. Or, A true representation of the English
nation under the Dutch ([London], 1689), 15, accessed April 2, 2019, Early English
Books Online (EEBO).
41

The Whigs, obviously chagrined at this perceived smear of their party’s ideology,
charged at the Tories’ insults in pamphlets that labelled them as “Jacobites” in some
instances because of their alleged support of James II. This indicated that Whigs
conflated Toryism with Jacobitism, even though most Tories were not Jacobite. Still, the
Whigs were prepared to “exploit the Jacobite ‘bogey’” in the midst of their attempt to
smear the Tories.66 An anonymous pamphlet, from a “Person of quality,” called The
character of a Jacobite, called Jacobites corrupt and two-shaped: “Jacobites…carry two
shapes in one body, like a Centaur, or the Irish Virgin with a Fish in her tail, half
Protestant, half Papist.” In other words, the author claimed that Jacobites had Irish
tendencies – half-Protestant and half-Catholic. The author then asserted that Jacobites
represented everything that was bad to Whigs: Catholicism, tyranny, arbitrary power,
resistance to law and authority, and animosity towards the nobility.67
The author then compared Jacobites to Lord Jeffries, the judge who had
suppressed Monmouth’s rebellion in 1685, by defining him as “an Abandon’d Slave to
Despotick Tyranny” who preferred killing people over admitting that he lost in his
ideological battle against Whigs. The author characterized James II as a monarch who
intended to reconcile Anglicanism and Catholicism, which were opposing doctrines, by
utilizing both religious doctrines in the ideal re-unified Church: “[He himself] will kiss
each other upon his coming back, two Chappels under the same Roof[.]” Louis XIV, to
Jacobites, was “like a Most Christian Prince.” Also, the author claimed that the Jacobites

66

Harris, 157.

67

Person of quality, The character of a Jacobite ([London], 1690), 1, accessed
April 3, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
42

believed, in turn, that their ability to use their faith freely would contribute to the
maintenance of authority and security in England. Ultimately, the author claimed this
would be the Jacobites’ downfall.68
Another anonymous document, Toryism revived: or, The character of a modern
tory (1690 – an update of a 1681 document with the same name) claimed that Tories
“have acted villanous Perjuries, unchristian Butcheries, and unheard of Cruelties on our
English Stage[.]” In addition to maintaining the author’s description of the typical Tory
as a “Monster with an English Face, a French Heart, and an Irish Conscience,” the
document updated the characterization of a Tory as someone who was “furiously inspired
for King James, [and] would bring him back again.” Indeed, the author claimed, the Tory
publicly acknowledged William III while privately supporting James II: “[W]hatever his
External Cant may be for King William, his inward man is fraught with King James.”
Regarding religion, the Tory “[wa]s either Crab Protestant, that crawls backward, toward
Ireland, or at best but the Cats-foot, wherewith the Romish Monkeys claw the Protestant
Religion[.]” The passage underscored the Irish (Catholic) origins of the “Tory” slur.
Additionally, the Tory pretended to be a High Churchman when he actually was not:
“[A]s he understands not her Doctrine, so he dishonours her by his Lewd
Conversation.”69
Another 1690 document, entitled A hue and cry after a Jacobite, or Louisian and
a true character to know and distinguish him, used almost the same language as the
opening paragraph in Toryism revived: or, The character of a modern tory, did. The
68

Person of quality, The character of a Jacobite, 3 & 5.
Anonymous, Toryism revived: or, The character of a modern tory ([London],
1690), 1 & 2, accessed July 24, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
69

43

opening paragraph in A hue and cry after a Jacobite, or Louisian claimed that the
Jacobite was equivalent to a follower of Louis XIV (the “Louisian” of this document),
and “[wa]s a certain Animal of the Doubtful Gender, with an English Face, a French
Heart, a Jesuits Conscience, and an Irish Valour[.]” This time, the author equated the
Jacobite with sharing the same ways of thinking as the Jesuits and bravery as the Irish,
signifying that Jacobitism was more of a Catholic-leaning ideology than Toryism was.
The author underscored this point by claiming, “This Creature is a Protestant in
Masquerade, a Jesuits Advocate, a Popish Sollicitor, [and] a King James’s Votary[.]”
Additionally, the author claimed that Louis XIV recoiled at any prospect of acting below
the law, and that he would do nothing but commit errors during his reign: “But…on a
sudden the Muligrubs have Violently possessed him[….]”70
Meanwhile, just as the Whigs were alleging that the Tories were all secretly proCatholic Jacobites, members of the Tory sect that adhered to Jacobitism made the
allegation that Whigs were anti-Anglican Protestant supporters of William III who feared
Catholicism, yet somehow grew attracted to it simultaneously. In an anonymous 1690
pamphlet entitled The character of a Williamite, the author was of this opinion when he
classified a Williamite as the following: “He is One, who being lately Bug-bear’d out of
his Wits, fancies himself still haunted by the frightful Ghost of Popery.” This implied that
Williamites were scared enough of Catholicism to lose the ability to think critically.
Along this line, the author claimed that Williamites spread Catholic lies to promote their
inclusive version of Protestantism: “[They]…tell…you more Romantick lies than ever

70

Anonymous, A hue and cry after a Jacobite, or Louisian ([London], 1690), 1, 2,
& 4, accessed April 3, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
44

stood on Popish Legend for the Holy Promotion of Protestant Religion.” The Jacobite’s
hatred of Dissenters, especially Presbyterians who gave the Whigs their name, was also
evident when he claimed that this exempted them from swearing oaths to the monarchy
and Anglicanism: “He derives his venerable Name from a Rigid Presbyterian, and by
consequence does not hold himself obliged to solemn Oaths, or any Sacred Tyes
whatever.”71
Additionally, the author’s hatred of both William III and his religion reflected his
identification of William III as a “Usurper” who was not his true King, just as Whigs
asserted the same regarding James II; the Jacobite claimed that Williamites would never
think of restoring James II to the throne. Furthermore, the Jacobite wrote, “He…therefore
represents Him as a Common Enemy, the Hater of his People, and scares you with Fire
and Fagot[.]” This, the Jacobite asserted, compelled Williamites to help their compatriots,
too. Finally, the Jacobite accused the Williamite of snubbing Anglicanism because it was,
allegedly, an “Unsafe…Protestant Church to glory in; and…own[s] himself as Religious
a Rebel as the greatest Fanatick Zealot in England[.]”72 This meant that Jacobites still
viewed Williamites as religious fanatics in 1690.
A pro-Williamite document that appeared in 1690, entitled The character of a
Williamite, lavished praise on the Whigs’ side. This pamphlet, unlike the others described
that hurled negative critiques at each opposing side, was a more positive one that
explained why Williamites were a group of heroic status; it was also indicative of the fact

71

Anonymous, The character of a Williamite ([London], 1690), 1, accessed
October 17, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
72

Anonymous, The character of a Williamite, 1.
45

that Whigs used this term as a sign of honor during the Williamite era. Indeed, in this
pamphlet, the Williamite symbolized everything good, the Jacobite everything bad: “[A]s
a JACOBITE must naturally include all that’s false, persidious, insulting, and cruel, or
otherwise would be no kin to his Godfather; so must his Reverse, a WILLIAMITE,…be
whatever is brave, generous, merciful, just[,] and good[.]” Furthermore, the Williamite
was synonymous with qualities such as “English Bravery,” “Love of Liberty,” and
“Hatred of Tyranny.” Finally, the Williamite shrewdly intimidated France, and was
“much more properly than the Cardinals a Fellow for any Prince in Christendom.” In
other words, the Williamite was the Christian monarch’s true ally.73
During the Williamite era, pamphlets that appeared in the form of dialogues also
asserted the differences between Whig and Tory ideology. One such pamphlet that
appeared in 1690, A smith and cutlers plain dialogue about Whig and Tory, accomplished
this while seeming to favor the Whigs – a bias that suffused the document almost from its
opening. For example, “The Tory revileth the Dutch, the Whig applaudeth them,”
according to the cutler in the dialogue’s fourth line; the smith added to this by claiming
that the Tories expressed sympathy with James II after his deposition, while Whigs
celebrated his loss of power. Indeed, both were divided in every aspect of society,
especially English religion.74
Although the smith wrongly assumed that only Anglicans were Tories and
Dissenters were Whigs, the cutler corrected him by stating that the Whigs comprised the
73

Person of quality, The character of a Williamite ([London], 1690), 2 & 3,
accessed April 3, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
74

Anonymous, A smith and cutlers plain dialogue about Whig and Tory
([London], 1690?), 1, accessed July 24, 2019, Early English Books Online.
46

top Anglican leadership positions; the Dissenters were merely assistants to Whiggish
Anglicans. Along this line, the cutler revealed his Whiggish anti-Catholicism by
highlighting his party’s supremacy in the Church and the Tories’ violation of their claim
to it when they agreed to the Catholics’ help: “[T]he Heads and chief Body of the Whigs
are in the Church of England, and Dissenters are only Helpers to the Church Whigs, as
the Papists do assist the Tory.” Furthermore, the Tory used Anglicanism as an excuse to
threaten the English government, as well as a mechanism for the establishment of
arbitrary government and tyranny. On the other hand, the Whigs believed in Protestant
security, wanting to assess the causes of the Popish Plot, supporting the exclusion of
James II from the throne, and thwarting the Popish Plot. Once in power, the cutler
assured, they ensured the security of Protestantism and civil rights. The Tories did not:
“By such as were in little Imployments, the Bulwark of Protestancy and Civil Right was
stronger than when in Tory Hands.”75
Indeed, the cutler claimed that the Tories not only weakened Protestant security
and civil rights, but also made government mostly irrelevant, weakened English
patriotism, strengthened French power in Europe, harmed England’s reputation in foreign
courts, and contributed to either the murder or exile of the monarch’s subjects.
Additionally, the Tories caused misery that allegedly helped them while harming the
Whigs: “[A]ll their rights violated; the Kingdom debauched and divided: these and a
thousand such Fruits may the Tory boast of, and the Nation curse him for.” The cutler
then claimed that, if England lacked everything that Whigs held dear to them (e.g.,

75

Anonymous, A smith and cutlers plain dialogue about Whig and Tory, 1.
47

Parliament, liberties, and justice), or “if all Whigs had been Tories,” then the previous
reigns would have erased all evidence of their existence.76
The language the Whigs used to assert themselves against the Tories manifested
itself in Daniel Defoe’s 1693 document, A dialogue betwixt Whig and Tory, aliàs
Williamite and Jacobite. Like L’Estrange’s The Observator twelve years earlier, Defoe’s
document appeared in the form of a dialogue between members, individually, of both
parties. Specifically, the Whig accused the Tory of making the Anglican Church the
object of mockery, and of stocking the Church with clergymen sympathetic to
Catholicism and both Charles II and James II. Defoe wrote of this, “[T]hey were
composed of Bishops, and a Clergy preferr’d by two Kings, who were about to set up
Popery and Tyranny…and wh[ich] might…Discredit…the Protestant Religion[….]” The
Whig, in short, feared the extirpation of the Protestant faith. Also, the Whig accused the
clergy of advancing arbitrary power. The Jacobite clergy, the Whig claimed, expressed
contempt for the Archbishop of Canterbury: “…[H]im too do they rail, scoff at, and treat
with the foulest Invectives.” Ultimately, the Jacobites did not deserve membership within
a “Reformed Church”: “[T]o be served by such a Clergy [was] not only a Scandal to the
Name of Protestant, but to the name of Religion.” In short, Williamites believed that the
Jacobites sullied their faith.77
The Whig also claimed that too many High Church clergymen were true only to
their Church, not God: “[M]ost of the high Church, as they call themselves,…have the

76

Anonymous, A smith and cutlers plain dialogue about Whig and Tory, 2.

77

Defoe, A dialogue betwixt Whig and Tory, aliàs Williamite and Jacobite
([London], 1693), 4 & 5, accessed March 8, 2019, Early English Books Online (EEBO).
48

Spirit of the Church in which they were bred, [but] they [do not] have the Spirit of God.”
The Whig expressed admiration for the Anglican faith, wanting to use it for maintaining
English laws, liberties, and the nation, not for selling out England to French interests. He
also supported the Anglican priesthood, and was eager to support its members, not
subjugate himself to them, as he claimed a Tory would have done: “I…am their Servant,
but never can submit to be their Slave.” Finally, the Whig claimed that William III was
the right King to serve – he was “Rightful and Lawful.” The Whig in Defoe’s document
claimed this characterization of William III “to be the Shibboleth, to distinguish those
who are alone fit to serve this Government.”78 In other words, the Whig utilized this as a
slogan to distinguish himself from the Tory in claiming that William III was
representative of all the Whig endorsed, such as anti-Catholicism.
As the first quarter of William III’s reign concluded, the Whigs had maintained
their unity in asserting that the war against France was a righteous anti-Catholic
campaign and that Tories were secretly pro-Catholic Jacobites; the Tories grew
increasingly fragmented in responding to William III, on the other hand, and broke into
three groups which made claims that were not necessarily compatible with each other at
this point. The first group, the Traditionalists, claimed that Catholics and Dissenters alike
continued to threaten Anglicanism; the second, the Revivalists, returned to preExclusionary Crisis Tory thought that only Dissenters were the main threat; and the last,
the Jacobites, was most likely to advance the restoration of James II to the throne and
label Whigs as Catholic-leaning Protestant Williamites. The writings that members on
both sides reflected these cleavages: the Whig pamphlets that highlighted the importance

78

Defoe, 6, 19, & 29.
49

of stopping Louis XIV’s ambitions and asserted that Tories were Jacobites, and the
Tories’ that hinted at the threefold path that their ideology was taking (including the
inclinations of some Tories towards Jacobitism that Whigs feared). Whig-Tory antiCatholic divisions then characterized the remainder of William III’s reign, during which
the war against Louis XIV ended, in 1697. Yet, while the war against Louis XIV might
have ended, the battle between ideologies did not. It would remain true as William III’s
reign drew to a close and a new century for England began.

50

CONCLUSION
This thesis has shown that the Whigs and Tories approached, and developed
within the context of, anti-Catholicism differently during the late seventeenth century; the
Whigs emphasized Catholicism’s threat to Protestant liberties, Francophobia, and a
toleration of Dissenters, while the Tories preached loyalty to Anglicanism, intolerance of
Dissenters like Presbyterians, and the belief that Dissenters worked with Catholics to
weaken Anglicanism. Also, Whiggish anti-Catholicism remained mostly static over time,
while the Toryish variant changed in four different ways. Particularly, the Whigs
maintained their unity, while the Tories fractured into three anti-Catholic groups at the
start of William III’s reign. Ultimately, four types of anti-Catholicism developed in late
seventeenth-century England: one Whiggish, and three other Toryish. Moreover, these
variants of anti-Catholicism reflected its complexity in late seventeenth-century England,
the ability of religion to shape politico-religious issues (and vice versa), and the centrality
of religion to these seventeenth-century politico-religious issues.
While the Whigs’ and Tories’ core anti-Catholic beliefs might have remained
fairly static between 1670 and 1693, the presentation and impact of those ideas changed
with different circumstances, and continued to do so as the seventeenth century
transitioned into the eighteenth. During this century, the Act of Union (1707) united

51

England and Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Stuart Dynasty came to
a close with the death of Queen Anne (1714), and two Jacobite rebellions (1715 and
1745) ended in defeat for their associated participants and, in turn, their cause. Moreover,
the Britons’ engagement in constant warfare against the French sharpened their collective
identity as a Protestant body unified against a Catholic antagonist, an argument which
historian Linda Colley makes in her seminal 1992 work, Britons: Forging the Nation,
1707-1837.79 Although this thesis does not make use of Colley’s work, it does make use
of her assertion that Protestantism was a rallying cry against French Catholicism, which
was a unifying force for Whigs in the late seventeenth century, and then one for Britons
in the eighteenth century as Colley suggests. Indeed, the Whigs maintained their antiCatholic beliefs well into the nineteenth century, at which point they transitioned from
being an anti-Catholic party to a pro-Catholic emancipation one. Their support of the
Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 confirms this. Meanwhile, the Tories clung to their
beliefs regarding a strong Anglican Church until the mid-nineteenth century. Unlike the
Whigs, however, the Tories underwent no such ideologically religious change. After the
mid-nineteenth century, both the Whigs and Tories transitioned into the Liberal and
Conservative Parties, respectively. Today, the name “Tory” survives as conventional
shorthand for the latter, while the name “Whig” hardly exists at all, except among
members of certain political circles. Both names, however, are shells of their former antiCatholic selves – a testament to the reduced power of anti-Catholicism in modern Britain,
yet a legacy of these parties that formed as a result of it in the late seventeenth century. In
79

See Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837 (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1992), for more information.
52

short, these names reflect a current of thought that still stains Britain’s historical legacy
today.

53

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Angell, Philemon. The way of peace: or, A disclosure of the dangerous principles and
practices of some pretended Protestants. London, 1686. Accessed March 23,
2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Anonymous. An account of the pretended Prince of Wales. London, 1688. Accessed
April 14, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. An account of the reasons of the nobility and gentry’s invitation of His
Highness the Prince of Orange into England. London, 1688. Accessed April 16,
2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. The arraignment and condemnation of the late rebels in the West. London,
1685. Accessed March 19, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. A Brief account of the nullity of King James’s title and of the obligation of the
present oaths of allegiance. London, 1689. Accessed April 1, 2019. Early English
Books Online (EEBO).
_______. The case of the people of England in their present circumstances considered.
London, 1689. Accessed 1, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. The character of a Williamite. London, 1690. Accessed October 17, 2019.
Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. The Designs of France against England and Hollard discovered. N.p., 1686.
Accessed March 21, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. A Dialogue between the Arch-B. of C. and the Bishop of Heref. London, 1688.
Accessed July 18, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. Englands crisis, or, The World well mended. London, 1689. Accessed April 2,
2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. Good and seasonable advice to the male-contents in England. London, 1689.
Accessed April 1, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. A hue and cry after a Jacobite, or Louisian. London, 1690. Accessed April 3,
2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. “Joshua Sager’s Sermon Notes.” 1687/88. Add. 54185. Fol. 59v. British
Library, London. Quoted in Steven C. A. Pincus, 1688: The First Modern
Revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. EBSCOhost.

54

_______. A second remonstrance by way of address from the Church of England, to both
houses of Parliament. [London?], 1686. Accessed April 16, 2019. Early English
Books Online (EEBO).
_______. A smith and cutlers plain dialogue about Whig and Tory. London, [1690?].
Accessed July 24, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Bethel, Slingsby. The present interest of England stated. London, 1671. Accessed August
27, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Cartwright, Thomas. A sermon preached upon the anniversary solemnity of the happy
inauguration of our dread sovereign Lord King James II. London, 1686.
Accessed July 18, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, First Earl of, and Paul Seaward. The History of the Rebellion :
A New Selection. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Accessed August 26,
2019. EBSCOhost.
Danby, Thomas Osborne, Earl of, to Chesterfield, Philip Stanhope, Earl of. [September]
1688. Browning, Andrew, ed. Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of
Leeds, 1632-1712. Vol. 2. Glasgow: Jackson, Son, 1944. Quoted in Pincus.
Defoe, Daniel. The Advantages of the Present Settlement. London, 1689. Accessed April
1, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. A dialogue betwixt Whig and Tory, aliàs Williamite and Jacobite. London,
1693. Accessed March 8, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Devonshire, William Cavendish, Earl of, to (Prince) William. July 10, 1688. King
William’s Chest. National Archives (NA), Kew Gardens, UK. Quoted in Pincus.
England and Wales, Sovereign (1689-1694: William and Mary). Their majesties
declaration against the French King. London, 1689. Accessed April 1, 2019.
Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Evelyn, John. The Diary of John Evelyn. Edited by E.S. de Beer. Vol. 4, Volume IV.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.
Hickeringill, Edmund. The history of Whiggism. London, 1682. Accessed February 12,
2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Johnston, Nathaniel. The dear bargain. Or, A true representation of the English nation
under the Dutch. London, 1689. Accessed April 2, 2019. Early English Books
Online (EEBO).
L’Estrange, Roger. A new dialogue between some body and no body, or, The Observator
observed. Nos. 1-5. London, 1681. Accessed July 17, 2019. Early English Books
55

Online (EEBO).
Marvell, Andrew. An account of the growth of popery and arbitrary government in
England. Amsterdam, 1677. Accessed September 5, 2019. Early English Books
Online (EEBO).
Member of the Church of England. An answer from the country to a late letter from a
dissenter upon occassion of his Majesties late gracious declaration of indulgence.
London, 1687. Accessed August 5, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Monmouth, James Scott, Duke of, 1649-1685. The declaration of James Duke of
Monmouth, the noblemen, gentlemen & others. London, 1685. Accessed
September 9, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Nalson, John. The true Protestants appeal to the city and country. London, 1681.
Accessed August 12, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Ormond, James Butler, Duke of, 1610-1688. A letter from His Grace James Duke of
Ormond. London, 1682. Accessed March 12, 2019. Early English Books Online
(EEBO).
P.B. The Means to Free Europe from the French Usurpation. London, 1689. Accessed
April 1, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Parker, Samuel. A discourse in vindication of Bp Bramhall and the clergy of the Church
of England from the fanatick charge of popery. London, 1673. Accessed October
17, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Patrick, Simon. Ad testimonium. London, 1686. Accessed March 23, 2019. Early English
Books Online (EEBO).
Person of quality, The character of a Jacobite. London, 1690. Accessed April 3, 2019.
Early English Books Online (EEBO).
_______. The character of a Williamite. London, 1690. Accessed April 3, 2019. Early
English Books Online (EEBO).
Phillips, John. The character of a popish successor. London, 1681. Accessed February
12, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of, 1621-1683. A letter from a person of
quality to his friend in the country. London, 1675. Accessed September 24, 2019.
Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Tutchin, John. An heroick poem upon the late expedition of His Majesty, to rescue
England from popery, tyranny, and arbitrary government. London, 1689.
56

Accessed July 22, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Wake, William. A sermon preach’d before the honourable House of Commons. London,
1689. Accessed April 1, 2019. Early English Books Online (EEBO).
Secondary Sources
Brink, A. W., ed. The Life of the Reverend Mr. George Trosse. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1974. Quoted in Pincus.
Browning, Andrew, ed. Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds, 1632-1712.
Vol. 2. Glasgow: Jackson, Sons, 1982. Quoted in Pincus.
Bucholz, Robert, and Newton Key. Early Modern England, 1485-1714: A Narrative
History. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Bulman, Bill. Anglican Enlightenment: Orientalism, Religion and Politics in England
and its Empire, 1648-1715. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1992.
Feiling, Keith. A History of the Tory Party, 1640-1714. London: Oxford University Press,
1924.
Harris, Tim. London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1987.
_______. Politics under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society 16601715. New York: Longman Publishing, 1993.
Jones, J. R. The first Whigs: The politics of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678-1683. London:
Oxford University Press, 1961.
Knights, Mark. Representation and Misrepresentation in Later Stuart Britain:
Partisanship and Political Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Accessed October 11, 2019. EBSCOhost.
Marshall, John. John Locke, Toleration, and Early Enlightenment Culture. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Pincus, Steven C. A. 1688: The First Modern Revolution. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2009. Accessed October 11, 2019. EBSCOhost.
Scott, Jonathan. England’s Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political Instability in
European Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Accessed
57

October 11, 2019. EBSCOhost.
Speck, W.A. James II. Harrow, UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2002.
Spurr, John. The Restoration Church of England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1991.

58