James VI and I accepted the more moderated Puritans and other dissenters, and he was able to keep his kingdom in peace. However, his son Charles I did not believe that kings were answerable to Parliament, but to God. In fact, he ruled without Parliament for many years. He trusted the running of the Church of England to William Laud, who believed that the Church had already gone through too many reforms. Laud went wrong when he tried to make church services more about doctrine and sacraments, and sought to make freewill the official doctrine of the Church.
Resultantly, religion and the government must be one or else there will always be a barrier that separates the citizens. Machiavelli had a much more reasonable idea where religion and government can be one unifying element, whereas Augustine seemed to have too much pride in his religion to see their faults. Rome has always been successful with religion since the model that Numa set, but once Christianity came to power it turns into an entirely new story because Christianity and Rome was not able to merge to work together because their ideals were different. This separation between the Church and the State eventually led to the fall of Rome. Rome will never be the same ever again as long as this rift and the struggle about virtues remain.
Thirdly, we find the daily lives of Christians changing a great deal from the past. The middle ages were inherently dark and without knowledge when we look at the Reformation period. We see a greater move toward literacy in the body, which me... ... middle of paper ... ...ferent movements in terms of who lead the church. During the middle ages we find that there was a episcopal church structure, in which leaders in powerful positions chose those who served in smaller ranks. As I mentioned the people often did not understand what was taking place, and did not seem to be very well taught, so to some degree we find the different orders of monks sort of helping people to live for God.
Becket also showed a great dishonor to both God and the king when he wore both the Chancellor and Archbishop ring. He could not possibly honor both, since the King's agenda did not coalesce with the will of God. Thus he had a false honor to both. Eventually, Becket made a choice to serve the honor of God above the king. Becket was also a man of great honor.
The greatest insurrection of the Tudor age was not over food, taxation, or land but over religion. Most people conformed, more or less willingly, to the structural and doctrinal changes commanded by the king and his ministers, but there were pockets of resistance, particularly in the north of England, from those who were loyal to the traditional religious order of Roman Catholicism and who resented the attempt to subordinate the church to the authority of the
God created men to think independently and any attempt to alter or coerce the mind, including governmental punishments and burdens, deviates from this religious design. Coercion is unacceptable, presumably because any leaders that begin to have dominion over the faith of citizens and who act without a connection or valid instruction from God could lead to godless opinions taking the place of the only true word. According to the word of God as understood by the then dominant Christian faith, the Lord chose not to propagate our decisions by coercion and neither should men, because man should not be able to hold such power. “For by grace you have been ... ... middle of paper ... ...ernment that attempts to serve both civil and religious liberties equally sets itself up for a false mission. History has proven that the two do not exist in harmony but can prevail separately.
The Privy council remained reluctant to make any radical moves. The Council, parliament, and the convocation all wanted reform, but not of the type that would firmly thrust the country into radical Protestantism. Moderate leanings were all that was desired, and this was reflected in the two major pieces of legislation, the Chantries Act and the Treason Act, which both did little to resolve doctrinal uncertainties. The new book of common prayer also trod a careful path between Protestantism and Catholicism. Jordan states that “These years ... were characterised by patience with the bishops, almost half of whom were conservative in their views and Catholic in their doctrinal sympathies, though all, trained as they were in the reign of Henry VIII, lent complete support to the Act Supremacy in all its constitutional and political implications ... the lesser clergy and the laity were with few
Certainly, no dialogue with Parliament was possible. After 1629, the country became particularly distrustful of the King. Charles' problem was he was an inept ruler whose belief in such ideas as the Divine Right of Kings and Royal Prerogative meant that he did not moderate his beliefs publicly. The public clearly saw his Arminian "Catholic" sympathies, for example. England needed stability: the Continent was a very real threat at the time, and England needed a monarch to represent England and its people's principles.
Early reformers had some hesitation when considering challenging the church, however, neither Carlstadt nor Zwingli had scruples for separating from the unanimity of the Roman Catholic Church. Both Carlstadt and Zwingli began establishing further differing reforms or changes to the views of Martin Luther. Both evangelical and reformed traditions agreed that the church had instituted to unnecessary sacraments upon the laity especially given that the Bible only stated two sacraments, therefore both of these traditions rejected the superfluous sacraments while keeping the sacraments supported by the Bible. Carlstadt, who vehemently supported Luther’s attack on the church and the sale and purchase of indulgencies, began radical reforms within Germany. Such reforms that Carlstadt initiated included not elevating certain elements in regards to communion, wearing secular clothing during services, abolition of the mass, and condemning iconoclasm thus instituting a church without visual illustrations of God.
They believed that since the perfect God created the world, everything must have a divine purpose. The clergy would sit back and allow suffering to continue because it did not benefit them to change the world, while the Protestants and Catholics both held political power; the Anabaptist, who didn’t believe in holding political pos... ... middle of paper ... ...ion influences individuals to make a better law for the other religions and people who didn’t believe and how Christians could live in a society. Voltaire poked fun of the government and tried to show how the misery of the people should take precedent over their puny tribunals of religion and politics. Lastly, Shakespeare shows how hard it is to balance the two. Therefore, there are many aspects tying the seemingly two separate ideas together.