The first general study of different attitudes to conformity and the political and cultural significance of the resulting consensus on what came to be regarded as orthodox. The different ways in which people expressed `conformity' or `nonconformity' to the 1559 settlement of religion in the English church have generally been treated separately by historians: Catholic recusancy and occasional conformity; Protestant ministerial subscription to the canons and articles of the Church of England; the innovations made by avant-garde conformist clerics to the early Stuart Church; and conformist support for the prayer book in the 1640s. This is the first book to look across the board at what was politically important about conformity, aiming to assess how different attitudes to conformity affected what was regarded as orthodox or true religion in the English Church: that is, the political and cultural significance of the ways in which one could obey or disobey the law governing the Church. The introduction places the articles in the context of the recent historiography of the late Tudor and early Stuart Church. PETER LAKE is Professor of History, Princeton University; MICHAEL QUESTIER is Senior Research Fellow, St Mary's Strawberry Hill. Contributors: ALEXANDRA WALSHAM, MICHAEL QUESTIER, PAULINE CROFT, KENNETH FINCHAM, THOMAS FREEMAN, PETER LAKE, ANDREW FOSTER, NICHOLAS TYACKE, DAVID COMO, JUDITH MALTBY.

Important texts in the Church's history collected together in one volume. This first miscellany volume to be published by the Church of England Record Society contains eight edited texts covering aspects of the history of the Church from the Reformation to the early twentieth century. The longest contribution is a scholarly edition of W.J. Conybeare's famous and influential article on nineteenth-century "Church Parties"; other documents included are the protests against Archbishop Cranmer's metropolitical powers of visitation, the petitions to the Long Parliament in support of the Prayer Book, and Randall Davidson's memoir on the role of the archbishop of Canterbury in the early twentieth century. Stephen Taylor is Professor in the History ofEarly Modern England, University of Durham. Contributors: PAUL AYRIS, MELANIE BARBER, ARTHUR BURNS, JUDITH MALTBY, ANTHONY MILTON, ANDREW ROBINSON, STEPHEN TAYLOR, BRETT USHER, ALEXANDRA WALSHAM