History of King Charles the First of EnglandAbbott, Jacob
History
History of King Charles the First of England
Abbott, Jacob
Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649; Great Britain -- History -- Charles I, 1625-1649; Great Britain -- Kings and rulers -- Biography
Another great topic of controversy was the subject of amusements.
It is a very singular circumstance, that in those branches of the
Christian Church where rites and forms are most insisted upon, the
greatest latitude is allowed in respect to the gayeties and amusements
of social life. Catholic Paris is filled with theaters and dancing,
and the Sabbath is a holiday. In London, on the other hand, the number
of theaters is small, dancing is considered as an amusement of a more
or less equivocal character, and the Sabbath is rigidly observed; and
among all the simple Democratic churches of New England, to dance or
to attend the theater is considered almost morally wrong. It was just
so in the days of Laud. He wished to encourage amusements among the
people, particularly on Sunday, after church. This was partly for the
purpose of counteracting the efforts of those who were inclined to
Puritan views. They attached great importance to their sermons and
lectures, for in them they could address and influence the people.
But by means of these addresses, as Laud thought, they put ideas
of insubordination into the minds of the people, and encroached on
the authority of the Church and of the king. To prevent this, the
High-Church party wished to exalt the _prayers_ in the Church service,
and to give as little place and influence as possible to the sermon,
and to draw off the attention of the people from the discussions
and exhortations of the preachers by encouraging games, dances, and
amusements of all kinds.
[Sidenote: Laud's contention with the judges.]
The judges in one of the counties, at a regular court held by them,
once passed an order forbidding certain revels and carousals connected
with the Church service, on account of the immoralities and disorders,
as they alleged, to which they gave rise; and they ordered that public
notice to this effect should be given by the bishop. The archbishop
(Laud) considered this an interference on the part of the civil
magistrates with the powers and prerogatives of the Church. He had the
judges brought before the council, and censured there; and they were
required by the council to revoke their order at the next court. The
judges did so, but in such a way as to show that they did it simply
in obedience to the command of the king's council. The people, or at
least all of them who were inclined to Puritan views, sided with the
judges, and were more strict in abstaining from all such amusements on
Sunday than ever. This, of course, made those who were on the side of
Laud more determined to promote these gayeties. Thus, as neither party
pursued, in the least degree, a generous or conciliatory course toward
the other, the difference between them widened more and more. The
people of the country were fast becoming either bigoted High-Churchmen
or fanatical Puritans.
[Sidenote: Severe punishments for expression of opinion.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account