Arguments for the policy of ceremonial uniformity in the Church of England in the 1630s.

Levchenko Aleksandra Stanislavovna ORCID: 0000-0002-5857-466X Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Lomonosov Moscow State University 119234, Russia, Moscow, Lomonosovsky ave., 27k4 berton.navs@gmail.com

Due to the incompleteness of the Reformation carried out "from above" by Henry VIII Tudor (1509-1547), the Church of England during the reign of James I (1603-1625) and Charles I (1625-1649) of the Stuarts was characterized by disputes about the nature of the Church. They were caused by the uncertainty of key elements of the doctrine, such as the essence of predestination, the power of bishops, royal supremacy in matters of religion, and others. In the 1630s, Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud (1633-1641) attempted to eliminate existing contradictions ^{[29, p. 33]} and thereby establish the doctrinal identity of the Church and strengthen its influence in society ^{[2, pp. 310-311]}. The Archbishop and a group of clergy who shared his views tried to plant a Lodian vision of religion in the Church. He was characterized by Arminian (opposed to Orthodox Calvinist) doctrine (for more details, see below), an emphasis on liturgical practice and the sacraments, and increased respect for religious dignity ^{[13, p. 284]}. The imposition of uniformity in church affairs, carried out by the Lodians, contradicted the milder concept of church conformity adopted during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I. The clergy were now required to strictly follow the "Book of Common Prayers" (1559), which contains the order of the liturgy and the collection of prayers for the administration of rituals, archiepiscopal and episcopal decrees. Otherwise, priests were fined, suspended from ministry, and excommunicated from the Church.

As a result of the Lodian policy, the number of opponents of the official Church has increased. Many Puritans considered it impossible to stay in it and emigrated ^{[11, p. 84]}. Lodianism did not have unconditional support among non-Puritanical Calvinists, who were committed to the Church and believed that its policies threatened its unity.

Dissatisfaction with religious policy and the need to purge the Church of Lodian innovations became one of the key mobilizing factors for the parliament to speak out against the king ^{[30, p. 105]}. Religion has become not only one of the long-term factors contributing to the emergence of civil strife, but also its immediate cause. Lod and his supporters were accused of intending to return to Catholicism. Rumors about the massacre of English Protestants by Irish Catholics in 1641 have repeatedly increased suspicions of the existence of a "papist conspiracy" – an alleged plan by Charles's advisers to restore Catholicism in England by Irish and Scottish troops ^{[8, p. 230]}. Distrust of the king and ardent anti-Catholicism contributed to the escalation of the constitutional crisis into a military conflict.

The purpose of this article is to analyze how supporters of the Lodian reforms justified the policy of church uniformity. This is essential for understanding official church policy and why it has contributed to deepening the gap between Puritanism and the Church of England.

The relevance of the article lies in the fact that it examines the problem of church uniformity as the cause of religious differences that have become crucial for the country. In addition, the topic allows us to address the Lodian controversy, which does not always receive sufficient attention from researchers compared to Puritanical texts. An analysis of the theological basis of Lodianism provides an opportunity to answer the question of whether it was compatible with the doctrine of the Church of England and, consequently, whether religious conflict could have been avoided.

The source of the ideology of the Lodian group and the new church policy under Charles I, as convincingly shown by the British researcher Nicholas Tyek ^[48], was Arminianism, a religious trend created by the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). His main idea was that the atonement of sins is available to everyone, and it can be earned by good deeds. This concept contradicted the Orthodox Calvinist doctrine of absolute predestination, according to which salvation depended solely on the will of God and was determined for everyone in advance. Arminianism began to spread in England in the 1580s. At the same time, it is quite difficult to find unambiguous evidence of the commitment of the majority of Lodian priests to Arminianism, including Archbishop Loda himself, who denied belonging to this trend ^{[24, p. 267]}. This is explained by their unwillingness to provoke criticism ^{[19, p. 93-95]}.

The ideas dominating among the church elite are evidenced by the limited preaching of Calvinist principles in England. In 1626, Charles I issued a proclamation forbidding the expression of opinions that differ from the established doctrine of the Church of England and lead to dissatisfaction with the king and the government ^{[45, p. 90-93]}. The proclamation of 1628 forbade participation in discussions both "for" and "against" Arminianism ^{[45, pp. 218-220]}. The ban on discussing the dogma of predestination extended to both Calvinists and anti-Calvinists, and was aimed at appeasing the Puritans. In fact, the proclamations gave an advantage to the Lodians, whose sermons and treatises emphasized church practice rather than doctrine.

The restriction of religious polemics was in the spirit of Lodianism – its representatives considered it harmful to involve the inexperienced minds of ordinary people in complex theological discussions. They repeated that people would be judged by God not for their knowledge of the subtleties of theology, but for their actions ^{[46, p. 11]}, and "true service to God consists in mercy to others and purity of life" ^{[38, p. 39]}. The emphasis on good deeds and faith in the basic tenets of Christianity, such as the resurrection of Christ ^{[27, p. 32]}, was accompanied by a belittling of the importance of predestination in the new doctrine. It is noteworthy that those who were on the Arminian side in the dispute over predestination contributed to increasing the importance of rituals in church life ^{[47, p. X-XIII]}.

The Lodians considered it necessary to strengthen the unity of the Church and restore the "decency" of worship. These goals were best served by church rituals, during which the unity of believers was especially evident. In the 1630s, general manifestations of religiosity during worship became particularly important, such as making the sign of the cross at the mention of Christ's name, kneeling to receive communion, and others. In accordance with the anti-Calvinist "turn" and the emphasis on worship, the Lodian clergy considered prayer more important than preaching, and prescribed greater respect for the Blessed Sacrament.

Lod's policy affected many aspects of religion, but the key innovations were outward worship and the uniform behavior of parishioners. The attributes of the cult, which had already fallen out of common practice, began to be restored in the Church ^{[44, p.87]}. The main and most controversial measure of Archbishop Lod was the transfer of the communion table from the center of the church to the eastern wall and the installation of altar fences ^{[3, pp. 285-287]}. As a result, parishioners were separated from the altar, which became accessible only to a priest who was endowed with a special status in Lodian thought ^[53].

Another example of the Lodian attitude towards ceremonial aspects is the attitude towards the decoration of the church. With their increasing influence in the church hierarchy, churches and cathedrals in England began to be actively decorated ^[13]: the walls were covered with scenes from the life of Christ, expensive church utensils and baptismal fonts were made. These changes gave the church space a sacred meaning. The changed doctrine implied the requirement to show special reverence for the "House of God", and not to imitate the Puritans, who "encroached on the sanctity of His house, claiming that God is everywhere" ^{[47, p. 8]}.

The policy of ceremonial uniformity was implemented through royal, archiepiscopal, and episcopal decrees and opinions of ecclesiastical courts and courts of royal prerogative. The reforms were most fully justified in numerous sermons and polemical theological treatises by the clergy of the Church of England. Sermons are primarily an oral genre, but in the 17th century they began to be actively published, and they began to make up a large proportion of all published books. Their popularity is eloquently evidenced by the fact that many of them were published within 2 weeks after their utterance and have survived several reprints ^{[33, p. 503-504]}. The audience of printed sermons was not limited to representatives of the upper classes of society. It also expanded significantly due to the exchange of sermons among friends ^[32].

On the one hand, preaching was seen as one of the ways in which God addresses believers ^{[31, p. 689]}. On the other hand, many sermons were devoted to burning issues of religious and political life and were close in their goals to political pamphlets. Printed sermons had great propaganda potential, especially if they were published as part of "campaigns" in support of certain measures. The Lodian clergy participated in a number of such campaigns: against financial aid to Puritan preachers ^[16], in support of forced loans to the crown ^[35] and others. The Lodian authors considered it possible to influence people with "instructions on the meaning and significance of ceremonies" ^{[37, pp. 30-31]}. Their publications were aimed at creating the broadest possible coalition in support of church policy, and contained many provisions common to all Protestants. It is important to take into account that the ceremonial features of Lodianism, as they were introduced in the parishes, affected the majority of the British, which explains the need for their propaganda.

Much of the Lodian argument was based on the view that the unity of religion is impossible without uniformity in liturgical practice and other external aspects. According to the traditional belief, the unity of the Church is inextricably linked to order in the state, and religious differences pose a threat to stability ^{[39, p. 205, 210]}. This method of argument was convincing, since all religious groups, including moderate and radical Puritans, were opposed to discord in the Church ^{[50, p. 310]}.

For Archbishop Laud, uniformity of worship was a means to achieve the unity of the Church. In the History of Trials and Trial, he wrote that he considered his main tasks to be "maintaining the external worship of God in the Church in uniformity, decency and the beauty of holiness" and "protecting the Church from external and internal underminings" ^{[23, p. 407-408; 24, p. 263]}. Obviously, these tasks were closely related for Lod.

In his sermons at the courts of James I and Charles I, Lode defended the idea that unity in religion is a guarantee of the well–being of the nation, because "schisms and schisms in the Church" are a source of disobedience in the state ^{[22, p. 157]}. Unity was the Archbishop's priority – through this prism he viewed everything that was happening in the Church. Thus, he considered the financial support of Puritan priests who preach outside their parishes to be an attempt to "treacherously ... overthrow the Church's administrators" ^{[24, p. 302-303]}. Sharing the stereotype of Puritan hypocrisy, Lode believed that Puritans were "the main advocates of innovation in the Christian world", preachers of schism and rebellion ^[25], and religion was only a cover for them to achieve political goals ^{[23, p. 292]}. According to British researcher Jason Pisi, Lod was distrustful of Puritanical initiatives. They required the participation of a large number of people and confirmed the authorities' concerns about the organization of Puritanism, which, in Lod's eyes, was criminal in itself ^{[34, p. 117-118]}.

Like Lod, the preacher, who holds similar views to him, argued that unity is "an absolute necessity ... for the well-being of the Church", it is "the life and soul of the Church", without which it "will disintegrate into sects" ^{[10, p. 7-8]}. Thomas Lawrence, a prominent Lodian apologist, believed that "schism in the Church usually leads to disorder in the state" ^{[27, p. 19]}.

Another argument in defense of the policy of uniformity was the argument about the adiaphora in religion – things that are "indifferent or insignificant" (things that are not necessary for salvation). According to historians I. P. Davydov and I. A. Fadeev, "the ritual ..., referring to the area of the adiaphora ... was entirely dependent on the will of the Crown and served the goals of the latter in the field of church policy" ^{[1, p. 32]}. Lod believed that since ceremonies are "insignificant things", believers have no reason not to perform them, violating the Church's regulations ^{[24, p. 240, 352-353]}.

Based on the adiaphora, the Lodians considered the Church's right to determine matters of discipline to be indisputable. Moreover, in the arguments of, for example, Bishop Robert Skinner of Lincoln, the Church could establish the practice of worship because many of its components are not clearly defined or are completely absent from Scripture ^{[43, p. 30]}. Since the Bible cannot provide guidance on all controversial issues, it is necessary to "obey the Church in what does not contradict Scripture" ^{[43, p. 23]} – that is, what the Church has decided is accepted as the rule.

The sacred texts also confirmed the need for a more reverent attitude towards the physical space of the church and the sacraments. Thus, R. Skinner advocated the observance of Old Testament customs and the attitude to the altar as a consecrated place, pointing out that these customs were not abolished by Christ ^{[42, p. 17-20]}, and another supporter of Lod believed that the British should imitate the Old Testament Jews prostrating in front of the tabernacle of the Covenant, and this is not idolatry ^{[26, p. 37]}.

As noted by British historian Andrew Milton, references to Old Testament and early Christian practices were also used by Calvinist priests, but if the latter used them to defend the status quo, the Lodians sometimes contradicted the canons of the Church ^{[29, p. 59]}. This allowed the opponents of innovations to defend the usual church practice, appealing to the canons, for example, Canon 82 regarding the location of the altar ^{[29, pp. 73-77, 44-45]}. But despite the fact that some of the requirements of the Lodians contradicted the canons, the principle of adiaphora was not violated, since these requirements were not considered mandatory for salvation.

The clergy, committed to Lodianism, proposed to resolve controversial issues by appealing to the authority of the Church, which has the right to "set and change the rules" ^{[40, p. 18-21]}. According to John Pocklington, a well-known proponent of ritual innovations, priests and parishioners should "behave humbly ... and in accordance with the pious and sound canons ... of the Church" ^{[36, p. 151]}. The involvement of the canons should have met with understanding among conformists, since the Puritans really did not observe many of them ^{[50, p. 77-79]}. In the Lodian controversy, the believer was not given the right to determine for himself what constitutes pious behavior – the appropriate behavior was that which corresponded to the precepts of the Church.

Church custom was also used to justify uniformity: it was supposed to serve as a guide in controversial issues. Lodian authors often attributed the policy of uniformity to the restoration of the practice of the Elizabethan Church of England. They are characterized by references to the Elizabethan religious institution (the "Book of Common Prayers" and the canons of the Church), and to the order established in royal chapels and cathedrals, where the altars were located in the eastern part of the temple and fenced ^{[24, p. 121, 127, 201, 206, 210, 221, 373]}. The chaplain of Charles I, responding to accusations that the Church was introducing innovations in worship, argued that Communion and other sacraments were conducted in the same way as under Elizabeth ^{[20, p. 45-47]}. Another priest, in a sermon during an archiepiscopal visit in 1635, defended church customs because they put an end to disagreements ^{[37, p. 30]}.

In the writings supporting the policy of religious uniformity, the image of the Church of England was based on opposition to the Puritan religion. Lod's supporters perceived the Puritans solely as troublemakers, since they considered their objections insincere. As the British historian Conrad Russell showed, the apologists of religious uniformity believed that the views and preferences of the Puritans were erroneous, and their conscience could not prevent them from fulfilling their church duties ^{[39, pp. 213-214]}. According to the Lodian preacher John Elborough, disagreement with the imposed church practice (for example, protest against altar fences) was not a reason to neglect it ^{[10, p. 18-20]}. Another Lodian believed that the Puritans had retreated from the Church because of their pride, which led to stubbornness and a desire for strife ^{[46, p. 10]}. It was the order in the Church that was supposed to be a guideline for the behavior of believers.

The image of a Puritan created by the Lodians was impartial: his actions were pragmatic, "his judgments were ridiculous, his faith was Pharisaic, his books were hypocritical, his opinions were Anabaptist, his doctrine was schismatic, his words were angelic, and his actions were diabolical" ^{[53, p. 13]}. Lod's supporters considered it necessary to "purge the Church of ignorant, erring, divisive and vicious priests ^{[46, p. 3]}, who, by challenging the canons, opened the way to "disorder, impiety and sacrilege in the Church" ^{[36, p. 151]}. The pamphlet by G. Widdows contains a "classification" of Puritans. Thus, the author speaks of a "rebellious sermonist" who believes that preaching is more important than prayer; a "brownist" believes that churches must be destroyed to eliminate idolatry, and a "Sabbath-keeping" (Sabbatarian) opposes all church holidays ^[52].

The intensity of such denunciations is not accidental. Lodianism owes much of its rise to the wave of anti-Puritanism of the 1620s. It arose in response to Puritan agitation related to the fact that England did not participate in the Thirty Years' War, and with the alleged marriage of Charles to the Spanish Infanta, which was followed by negative Puritan pamphlets accusing the court of pro-Catholic sympathies ^{[12, p. 13-14]}.

Rhetoric hostile to the Puritans can also be seen as a means of attracting supporters. In the 1630s, anti-Puritan sentiments, widespread among both the laity and the clergy ^[18], increased further due to the Puritanical reaction to persecution. As a result, members of the clergy who opposed the Puritans were perceived by association as supporters of the Lodian program.

The reasons for the church uniformity of the Lodian authors allow us to assert that the basis of religion for them was the unity of believers in external worship, and rituals were seen as the main means of strengthening the Christian community. Accordingly, Puritans, who, according to the Lodians, avoided participating in common church practice, were perceived as disruptors of the unity of this community. Such arguments helped to attract a number of conformists who considered it important to strengthen the status of the Church. They supported the trend towards decorating churches and were wary of Puritanism, trying to dissociate themselves from associations with it. Such rhetoric corresponded to the image of Lodianism as a conservative trend – the Lodians sought to emphasize their rootedness in tradition, including due to constant accusations of religious innovations.

It is interesting to note that a number of proponents of uniform observance of rituals did not limit themselves to traditional arguments. G. Widdows, in his sermon of 1630, traditionally refers to the authority of the Church and its right to establish what is not stated in the Bible, but does not stop there. He uses an excerpt from the Epistle to the Corinthians of the Apostle Paul, "All things must be done decently and decorously" (Let all things be done decently, and in order. 1 Cor. 14:40). According to Widdows, "all things" means the need to observe "the doctrine, discipline, rituals and ceremonies of the Church": "Whatever our reformed Church commands, everything must be done decently and decorously" ^[52]. The preacher believed that bowing to the cross and mentioning the name of Christ is a "direct biblical commandment." Next, he listed the Lodian elements of worship (among which there were innovations): kneeling to receive communion, observing the holidays of the church calendar, bells, organ music, etc.^[52] Thus, the requirement to follow the established liturgical practice was presented as a direct commandment of God. These arguments were supported by the statement that "the apostolic tradition comes from the Old Testament" ^{[27, p. 12-13]}.

According to another defender of the "decency" of worship, E. Bowen, the statement from the Corinthian epistle of the Apostle Paul "Everything must be decent and decorous" contains the essence of the duties of a Christian ^{[5, p. 3]}. The preacher believed that Churches where everyone serves God in their own way are close to falling into heresy ^{[5, p.11]}. He argued that the practice of religion should be uniform in all parishes, otherwise there would be as many religions as parishes in England ^{[6, p. 12, 22]}. The main characteristic of the Church, in his opinion, is a certain pattern of external worship. Thus, all those who did not follow the established discipline were excluded from the ranks of true Christians.

In an extensive treatise by Christopher Dow, which responds to the criticism of the Puritan Henry Burton, it is argued that "violation of the institutions of the Church, even in matters of ceremonies, and not in matters of faith, causes censure even more serious than violation of the moral laws of God himself" ^{[9, p. 113]}. The offender's guilt is aggravated by "self-will, as well as self-justification, contempt and vilification of power." "If such violations are not severely suppressed,– continues K. Doe, they will soon cause anarchy and confusion in the Church" ^{[9, p. 113]}. This passage deals with the equal severity of violations of doctrinal and ceremonial offenses. It is noteworthy that in W. Hardwicke's sermon, the attitude towards rituals as "indifferent things" is attributed to the characteristics of Puritans ^{[17, p. 16, 21]}. This similarly eliminates the difference between important and "indifferent" things, which is so essential to Anglican theology.

It is necessary to compare the two methods of argumentation discussed above. The differences in the rhetoric of the two groups of Lodian authors fit into the concept of Peter Lake, a renowned researcher of the Elizabethan and Early Stuart Churches. In his monograph "Lodianism: Piety, Polemics, and Politics during the Personal Reign of Charles I," Lake identified the "minimum" and "maximum" ways for the Lodians to justify church uniformity ^{[21, p. 4-7]}. The first of them appealed to the tradition and the right of the Church to define "insignificant things" and was based on the values of order, subordination and decency. This approach had weaknesses: the Lodians appealed to the tenets of the Church of England, but its doctrinal and liturgical documents were often inconsistent with policy. In addition, calls for the revival of Old Testament and apostolic practices came into conflict with the continuity with the Church of Elizabeth and James.

As a result of several factors – the unsatisfactory argumentation of Lodianism, its doctrinal origins, the strengthened confidence of the official Church, and the extremely harsh reaction of the Puritans to persecution, which necessitated the need to defend the Lodian position with greater force – the "maximum" method of justification emerged. Bowen, Widdows, Dow, and other "maximalist" authors directly invoked the authority of the Bible to justify the external aspects of the Church of England, sacralizing church rituals. If, for example, the preacher W. Quelch referred to church custom as the basis for the celebration of the liturgy, baptism, church holidays, etc., since the apostles left no "special prescriptions" in this regard ^{[37, p. 38-40]}, the Lodian "maximalists" saw the apostolic tradition as a direct guide to church practice.

Despite the differences between the "minimum" and "maximum" methods, the fact that the church practice of the Puritans began to be denounced more intensively was a logical consequence of the desire for uniformity that was instilled throughout the 1620s and 1630s. As a result, in the preaching of the Lodians, "incorrect" worship of God sometimes became equated with apostasy ^{[7, p. 29-30]}. Insisting on uniformity of worship, the Lodians gradually transformed the doctrine of the Church of England.

The demand for "decency" and uniformity in the Church was directly related to the decline in the importance of the doctrine of predestination. At the same time, the role assigned to observing all the ritual elements of church practice did not correspond to either the official tenets of the Church or post-reformation church practice. Consequently, the explanations of the Lodian policy proposed by such researchers as K. Sharpe ^[41], J. Bernard ^[4] and P. White ^[51] are unconvincing, believing that it was based on the desire to preserve order in the Church, and the program of mandatory observance of liturgical and other regulations was not caused by changes in theology. In their opinion, the Lodian group did not seek to revise the ceremonial and doctrinal foundations of the Church – the Lodians did not put forward new ideas, but only demanded strict adherence to existing rules. But if the Lodians really only wanted to strengthen order and uniformity in the Church, they probably would have been satisfied with the existing church rules.

One of the factors that contributed to the outbreak of civil wars in 1642 was religious conflict. Discontent with Lodianism was caused by a variety of circumstances. The innovations in religion itself have raised widespread concerns that there is a conspiracy in the Church of England to restore Catholicism in the country. Secular parish holders were concerned about attacks on their property rights; the Church was negatively affected by its connection with the monarch, who was losing the trust of his subjects; the authority of bishops interfering in the affairs of local administration was low, etc. ^{[15, p. 193]} Although many of the reasons for discontent were not directly related to religion as such (which is actively referred to by supporters The Lodian doctrine, which inspired ceremonial and other transformations in church life, became the reason for the protests of the Puritans.

It seems to the author of this article that religious polemics made a significant contribution to the deepening of the church schism during the reign of Charles I. It made it possible to clarify the ideological positions of each side, as they were formulated in dialogue – the Lodian vision of the Church was based on opposition to the Puritanical one.

The Lodians gained a dominant position in the Church largely due to their anti-Puritanism, which coincided with the monarchs' suspicious attitude towards Puritans. Anti-Puritanism contained a contradiction: on the one hand, Puritans were portrayed as an insignificant group, on the other as an existential threat. Both of these concepts were used in propaganda. It can be assumed that the Lodians were hostages of their own anti-Puritan prejudices: by deploying measures to bring the Puritans to uniformity, they could not reduce the intensity of their rhetoric, which in turn legitimized harsh measures against the Puritans.

Despite the existing disagreements between the official Church and the Puritans even before the establishment of Lodianism, it was the Lodians who officially called those who did not fully approve of the "Book of Common Prayers" "rebels" and "sectarians" ^{[15, pp. 213-214]}. Lode's supporters, responding to the writings of such provocative Puritan authors as A. Leighton, W. Prynne, G. Burton and D. Bastwick, gave Lodianism the character of the only true ideology from a biblical point of view, as a result of which the Puritans turned out to be not only violators of the ordinances of the Church of England, but also opponents of the Word of God. Instead of relaxing the demands, the official Church reacted to the discontent by resorting to the "maximum" (in P. Lake's terminology) way of justifying its policy and narrowing the scope of what was allowed in the Church to the extreme.

The Puritans, in turn, also became more and more uncompromising and were ready to break with both the bishops, who presented themselves as secret Catholics, and the "Book of Common Prayer." By demonizing each other, both sides lost the opportunity to resolve their differences peacefully.

Thus, religious conflict occurred not only in dioceses, where Puritans were ousted from parishes, but also on the pages of printed sermons and treatises, reaching its peak in the second half of the 1630s and the early 1640s. During the polemic in both camps, images of the enemy were created – "papist" and "schismatic" – which proved to be in great demand on the eve and during the civil wars. For example, publications in support of the king in 1640-1641, which are characterized by strong anti-Puritanism, used already established stereotypes about Puritans ^{[18, p. 108-109]}.

It can be argued that the image of the Puritan, which was completed in the Lodian writings, was one of the key components of the "competing mythologies" (the term of the British researcher Anthony Fletcher) – hostile representations of each other by the party of the king and the party of parliament. At the heart of these mythologies was the belief in the existence of a conspiracy: members of Parliament saw the events of 1640-1642 as confirmation of the theory of a Papist conspiracy, while supporters of the king saw a conspiracy of rebels and sectarians. According to E. Fletcher, the civil war was the result of mutual distrust, which began back in the 1620s ^{[14, p. 413-415]} It found vivid expression in both Lodian and Puritanical religious polemics. The view of Puritans as godless sectarians, which was exploited in Lodian writings, was never fully abandoned and strongly influenced religious policy both in the 1640s and 1650s and after the Stuart Restoration in 1660.

In conclusion, it should be said that the ideals expressed by the Lodians in the 1630s contributed to the formation of a royalist party united by devotion to the Church of England. But also these ideals, developed in the writings of the Lodian Lobby in the 1640s and 1650s ^{[13, p. 274, 284]}, became the basis of Anglican identity, since after the Restoration not only Puritanism was definitively delegitimized, but Lodian ritualism was fully restored.