Search results
I was but lately removed into these parts, and one of special note forewarned me I should be crucified as Christ was between two thieves : the Papist [and] the Puritan . . . Richard Heyricke, Three Sermons preached at the Collegiate Church in Manchester . . ., 1641 , epistle dedicatory
5 Puritans and ecclesiastical government PRELATE AS PASTOR OR PURITAN AS STOOGE? T he tenor of ecclesiastical government in Cheshire down to the 1630s had much in common with that outlined in Part I for secular affairs. The diocese was presided over by a series of evangelical Calvinist bishops, anxious to defuse the puritan issue by coming to a series of accommodations with puritan nonconformity. This was a line prompted, and later justified, by the prevalence of popery in the diocese and the relative scarcity of Protestant preaching ministers. Deals done
Aristotle. Laughter was dynamite – it would have blown away the entire edifice of the Church. The Puritans, true heirs of mad monk Jorge, gave a further twist to the screw and did everything in their power to proscribe laughter. Alas, the book that would have changed the world was destroyed, and it would take centuries until the Enlightenment finally freed humanity – for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
diocese were fully known to their Lordships of the Council. 3 At a later date the puritan divine George Walker showed that he too was well aware of the extent of, and problems caused by, impropriations. He observed that the Lancashire hundred of Furness where he was born
In this chapter I want to talk about puritanism as a stereotype and about anti-puritanism, a discourse organised around that stereotype as an ideology, by which I mean a way of looking at the world and explaining what has gone wrong with it and what to do about it. Anti-puritanism provided a narrative, or series of narratives, about the recent past, the present and immediate future, a narrative that identified the villains and heroes of the piece. It thus provided a way of ordering experience, and of
It is well known that anti-popery and anti-puritanism were central to the political culture of post-Reformation England and the early British empire. 1 We also know that from the later eighteenth century onwards, orientalism played a crucial role in debates about the British presence in South Asia and (later) the Middle East. 2 To an extent the via media of English Protestantism and the construction of the Orient serve, respectively, as ideological identifiers of the so-called first and second empires, or landmarks in the shift from West to East in British
In May 1639 the godly minister Edmund Calamy arrived in London having resigned his living of the Essex parish of Rochford, a parish he had served at the personal invitation of the Earl of Warwick, a patron and friend. Calamy’s move to London had been brought about by the election of the parishioners of St Mary, Aldermanbury, a wealthy parish located in the centre of the city of London. 1 The Aldermanbury living was owned by the parish itself and had been rendered vacant by the death of its puritan minister Dr John
Thomas Middleton's The Puritan Widow (1607), 1 as scholars have noted, invites readings of its satirical elements as well as its confusing, even ‘flawed’, dramatic form. 2 The readings of satire illuminate the play's treatment of religious and political debates. Donna Hamilton, for instance, says the play's satire is ‘unrelenting and comprehensive’, before claiming that the ‘main targets [of the satire] are Puritans and Catholics
between 1610 and 1616. 4 They were all what have come to be known as ‘city comedies’, a genre which Jonson had done much to produce and refine. As such, they all staged a fallen world defined by commerce, greed and hypocrisy, a world in which a series of fools, buffoons, thieves, alchemists, puritans and projectors combine to swindle and outwit one another in search of money, status, food and sex. 5 It is of course well known that Jonson’s city comedies satirised alchemists, puritans and projectors. 6 We
By the 1630s, some of Bernard’s closest allies in the church hierarchy had died, including Arthur Lake (1626) and Tobie Matthew (1628). In their place, individuals less favourable toward puritan theological and pastoral leanings were gaining influence. William Piers’s 1632 translation to Bath and Wells, Laud’s 1633 appointment as Archbishop of