This deftly written book tells the story of the transition from the centrality of the church to that of the state in Tudor and Stuart England. The story begins with a quite medieval Henry VIII and ends with the triumph of constitutional-parliamentary monarchy following the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689. Besides a Bill of Rights, the first step taken by the new regime led by William and Mary was the passage of the Toleration Act of 1689 (for Protestants). From then on the state was the unifying factor and the church became a divisive factor.
A good, non-technical presentation of the era. He has a slightly offensive take on religion at the outset that he manages to suppress later. Many themes are revisited to the point of frustration (i.e., faith versus works, Protestants versus Catholics, 43, 112, etc.).
He sometimes tosses in bald assertions: "The United States Constitution was deliberately designed to provide for these 'checks and balances.' The English . . . have traditionally preferred an active system to an inactive one, which the American system can too easily become" (107). "["Bloody":] Mary was a gentle, kind, and sympathetic woman. In other times and in other circumstances, she may well have been a figure upon whom history could look kindly" (64, not that I'm saying Elizabeth executed any fewer people).
Due to its toned-down language (with hints from editorial slip-ups that the author could hardly strive for an Oxford manner, as his strength may be in understanding and conveying more than in composition), this rarely drags, except when he feels like, say, reproducing (76-79) the entire 39 Articles.