Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 323 items for :

  • "Engagement" x
  • Manchester Religious Studies x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All
Elliot Vernon

presbyterians found themselves as an interest without any true political constituency. The period 1649–51 were dark times for the city presbyterians and Christopher Love would pay the ultimate price for the presbyterian challenge to the English revolution. This chapter explores the London presbyterians’ resistance to the first three years of republican government in England. It will explore the presbyterians’ initial resistance to the new regime, the arguments surrounding the Commonwealth’s Engagement and the plot, trial and execution

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64
Elliot Vernon

presbyterian fortunes in the quest for settlement. The Hamiltonian engagement and parliamentarian rapprochement The Kirk’s timing in using their English presbyterian allies to register their protests through the Testimony campaign proved to be fortuitous for religious presbyterian interests in both Scotland and England. The national support for the Testimony , together with the resurgence of political presbyterian demands, demonstrated that the Covenant-engaged interest retained the ability to mobilise despite the

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64
Elliot Vernon

dissimilar groups’ and the Covenant-engaged March petition suggests that the political presbyterian coalition’s level of coherence should not be overestimated. 77 In the spring of 1647 these divisions were not so apparent while the presbyterians scented victory; however, the fault-lines within the political presbyterian alliance would surface again in the summer of 1647 as the hopes of a settlement faded. London’s solemn engagement The ‘political presbyterian’ attempt to establish political dominance began to derail from

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64
Abstract only
Elliot Vernon

London. The Commonwealth’s attempt at something akin to an oath of loyalty, the Engagement, was seen by presbyterians as being directly contradictory to the Solemn League and Covenant, leading to a wave of resistance to the new regime. The presbyterian ministry and citizenry in London, unable to submit to what they saw as the illegality of the Rump Parliament, took the dangerous path of supporting their presbyterian brethren in Scotland and Charles II, the newly covenanted King of the Scots, as a means to satisfy their

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64
Michael Carter-Sinclair

‘Jewish capitalism.’ Some were inspired to engage in the struggle with poverty by priests who wrote articles in the press, urging Catholics to action. 43 Others took their lead from Pope Leo XIII who, in his encyclical of 1893, de rerum novarum , and in other writings, called on Catholics to take an active part in helping to resolve the ‘social question.’ 44 Many Catholics would have felt the need for social engagement when they witnessed conditions first hand in Vienna itself. While some Catholic organisations adhered to religious and charitable aims, others were

in Vienna’s ‘respectable’ antisemites
Elliot Vernon

traction and challenge the ancient constitution. The pattern of the London clergy’s engagement with Parliament from late 1641 was exemplified by their preaching in the early fast sermons. These sermons cast Parliament as the divinely ordained vehicle to ‘reform the Reformation itself’ and to restore England to the truths of the gospel. 18 To resist or even remain neutral to Parliament’s providential task to aid the church, as Stephen Marshall’s famous sermon Meroz cursed claimed, was an act that would summon God

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64
Elliot Vernon

liberty of sending a copy of the Provincial assembly’s new book to Oliver Cromwell to thank him for relieving presbyterians from the legal penalties for non-subscription to the Commonwealth’s Engagement. 52 In his accompanying letter Whitaker stressed the need for rebuilding godly unity and asked Cromwell to ‘consider seriously how religion is not onely weakened by divisione, but almost wasted by the daily growth of atheisme and the prophane’. Whitaker counselled Cromwell that the onus for action to protect the church now lay with

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64
Michael Carter-Sinclair

who were elected should not be exaggerated, no legal bar to their participation existed, and some of their number sought direct political engagement over a considerable period. As late as 1867, Father Emanuel Paletz was re-elected to the council in Ottakring. Paletz was successful in the third curia, alongside Ignaz Kuffner, another member of the Jewish brewing family encountered earlier in this chapter. 35 As will be seen, Paletz and Kuffner, even at what antisemites alleged was the height of the ‘liberal era,’ enjoyed at least a working relationship when

in Vienna’s ‘respectable’ antisemites
Elliot Vernon

Petition and Remonstrance ‘is now posting through the land for hands to make it stark’. 81 These chaplains, whose position invariably involved travelling on secretarial engagements for their patrons, acted as go-betweens between godly ministers in the country and the metropolis. One such emissary was Lord Brooke’s presbyterian-leaning chaplain Simeon Ashe, who took the Petition and Remonstrance from London to receive subscription from ministers in Warwickshire. 82 The Petition and Remonstrance, which had amassed between 700 and

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64
Elliot Vernon

develop a programme based on political exclusion as a means of obtaining their objectives. A key feature of this political strategy was religious identity, focused on the visible and public engagement made by the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant. The urban politics of the mid-to-late-seventeenth century required partisans to organise locally in order to achieve their objectives. This factor has been explored by Michael Braddick, who has argued that a focus on specific mobilisations demonstrates the social depth

in London presbyterians and the British revolutions, 1638–64