Here is some 'getting ideas out of my head' stuff regarding the first piece of my thesis.
Thomas Watson was born in 1617-1619, a turbulent time in England. To understand his context I've been studying English history beginning with the first Puritans in the 1500's, through Elizabeth I's reign, to the reign of James I, Charles I, the English Civil War, and then Charles II. I'm only just beginning though so my focus is on James I who reigned from 1603 - 1625, the king who was running the nation at the time of Watson's birth.
The nation was in the midst of some serious religious tension. The Church of England had successfully established itself apart from the Church of Rome for some time now but the pressure exerted by the Catholics and radical Protestants was a constant strain for both religion and politics. The Puritans, radical as well as moderate, had become quite popular and powerful within the House of Commons and began to dominate the discussions at parliament. They had endured decades of repression under Elizabeth who forced them to comply with the rites and ceremonies of the established Church of England and silenced their dissenting voices in the Church, government, and eventually in the streets. The Puritans wished to reform the Church of England and do away with Popish garments, rites, and ceremonies and argued vehemently that they were superstitious in nature and had nothing to do with true religion. They argued also that the Church ought to be run as a Presbytery and that the Episcopal model of bishops, archbishops, lordbishops, and archdecons with the monarch as the head of the Church was unbiblical and should therefore be completely done away with. I will at this time remind the reader that nearly every facet of medieval life was greatly affected by the Church and that what the Puritans were pushing towards would have great consequences for every facet of life for everyone in England. For suggesting such ideas, and attempting to implement them, they were cast out of their pastorate positions, thrown in prison, and some of them executed for writing seditious literature and for treason.
By the reign of King James I the Puritans were sick and tired of being attacked for refusing to play along with the stagnant religion of the age and they had enough support to begin digging their feet in and stand their ground. Every time the king called parliament (which he needed to do to make taxes to fund his needs) they made things difficult for him and requested (demanded really) that a commission investigate the many religious grievances done to the godly and that the Church of England by reformed. The king's response was to dissolve parliament and sternly warn them to not meddle in the affairs of the king. You can imagine how well that went over. The next time the king called parliament the Puritans had only grown bolder and more insistent, passing bills and laws to try and limit the king and provide learned and godly [puritan] ministers in every region of England. The king had to dissolve parliament again, this time without gaining the funds he required and he resolved not to call parliament again.
The Puritans meanwhile were secretly setting up Presbyteries across England in secret, within the Episcopal system. They also began to discuss when it might be permissible in God's eyes to take up arms against your king. The fire of revolution was beginning to spark. Then some kindling was added, some issues that were quick to create small flames. Prince Charles was set to marry the Spanish Princess Anna Maria, a dedicated Catholic. Rumors began to circulate which became a moral panic among the Protestants; the king was supporting the Catholics and Armenian heretics and had become one himself! The conspiracy theory was strong and difficult to combat within the minds of the English people. Those who supported the king in his tyranny were Arminians and Anglo-Catholics. Those who resisted the king and petitioned for the rights of the people were Puritans. The lines were being drawn for a civil war.
An interesting point in all this is that King James I seems to be represented very differently in history depending on who you read. To your average Puritan he was a tyrant. To an extreme nonconformist Puritan he was an incompetent, evil-hearted, hypocritical, dumb, evil, stupid, stupid, very stupid, dumb dumb head spawn of Satan stupid. [I might be exaggerating a little... but they really had nothing good to say about him]. To a moderate Protestant King James I was a godsend, a wise and theologically astute ruler who lead England through a tough bout with the Catholic Church amidst a difficult political climate at home. Even though the perception of him is widely varied one thing is for certain, King James had a very high opinion of his authority both within politics and the Church and he had a very hard time with the idea that he had to listen and work with other human authorities.
And now my ideas have run out.
Hope that was intersting
Greg Out
No comments:
Post a Comment