The Grand Remonstrance that preceded the removal and execution of King Charles I in Great Britain will be our focus. This document, like the Declaration of Independence, as a statement made by a people who had reached a certain level of rationality. We will see many of the themes from the British Civil War repeated by the Founding Fathers. This leads us to ask do we evolve and remain awaken, or do we relapse, unaware of what can lull us to sleep?
Procession, Progression or Cycles?
With Christianity we get a sense of linear progression: God created the earth, created Man, Man sinned and the Old Testament is a chronicle of God’s Chosen People the Jews who rise and fall in grace as the leave Egypt, receive the 10 Commandments, and receive Israel as their kingdom after following God’s guidance. During this period there are tenets, mores and morals that are developed regarding cleanliness, sexuality, wealth and prosperity, and the pitfalls of falling from God’s Plan as illustrated by David and Solomon. Throughout the Old Testament we are shared glimpses of the coming of a Savior who will be greater than Moses, David and Solomon, and who will provide a kingdom of salvation.
There is a sense of progression, despite the cycle of rise and fall from graces of the figures we meet in the Old Testament. This sense of progression is further reinforced with the birth of Christ, his life and teachings, and with his dying for our sins so that we may be saved. After Christ, we have turned a corner. The New Testament depicts an evolution in Christian thought as the prophecy of the Messiah answers the themes set up in the Old Testament.
This may be the reason why we can’t see when we regress. Our thinking is framed in the west by a concept of procession, of the weight and trajectory of history winding it’s way to the pinnacle of the west, our American nation. We tend to see things in milestones, such as the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and these are like stones in a foundation that cannot be dislodged. We concede that things do occur in cycles, but this procession has instilled a sense of permanence in us.
We are going to look at England in the 1600s, at a time when most thought that the King had been selected by God to rule. Yet that same people ordered the death of a king, and carried it out for reasons that the king had broken his covenant with not only God, but with his people. The crimes are the same as what the Founding Fathers charged in 1776.
The Beheading of A King
Charles 1st and Britain of the 17th Century
Charles was the son of James Stewart, who ruled England and Scotland as James the First. The Stewart line of kings ascended the throne when Queen Elizabeth died without an heir, thus bringing the line of Tudors to a close. James Stewart was descended from Henry Tudor the 7th, Elizabeth’s grandfather.
England during the 17th century experienced a shift in religion, with England breaking away from Papacy with Henry the 8th, resulting in conflicts between the Anglican Church, headed by Henry which lead to bloody persecutions of Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants when power was held by Mary and then by Elizabeth. While the Anglican church is similar to the Catholic church in that it has a hierarchical structure reflects a continuity with pre-Reformation Catholic practices, where ecclesiastical authority was centralized in bishops. The Throne is ultimately the authority of the Church of England.
Scotland had become primarily protestant, and during James time Protestantism has evolved differently from the Anglican Church. Liturgy is not emphasized, and there is a decentralized approach to the church organization in that authority to select ministers is held by local communities called presbyteries. This is self representation. The ceremonies do not involve a prayer book, but instead emphasize a more direct relationship to God. The scripture is the sole authority for faith and practice.
Religious Intolerance
Charles, in attempt to extend his authority further, and introduced the following “reforms”. These would eliminate the independence that Church of Scotland had achieved.
- He wanted to establish an episcopacy (rule by bishops) to the Church of Scotland, which had been Presbyterian (ruled by councils of elders).
- In 1637, he tried to impose a new Book of Common Prayer on the Scottish church that was very similar to the Anglican prayer book.
This lead to the Bishops Wars where Scotland rebelled against Charles in 1639 and 1640.
Charles Ignored Parliament
The King of the England was able to convene and dismiss Parliament. Charles, wanting to fund military initiatives against Spain and France. His ministers and advisers operated with complete authority, and imprisoned those who opposed their goals of raising money for what would become disastrous engagements. To avoid answering to Parliament, Charles dismissed Parliament in 1629 and did not reconvene Parliament for 11 years. During this time he forced lords to loan money at the threat of imprisonment, he would sell titles that were mandatory that came with fees and taxation.
Without being to raise money, Charles was forced to convene Parliament. In April 1640, King Charles I called the Short Parliament in response to financial difficulties stemming from his military campaigns. However, the parliament was dissolved after just three weeks due to disagreements over taxation and grievances against the king, highlighting the growing discontent among Parliament members regarding royal authority.
Following the failure of the Short Parliament, the Long Parliament convened in November 1640 and aimed to address grievances against Charles I. This assembly sought significant reforms, including limitations on the king’s powers and the abolition of certain royal prerogatives, setting the stage for further conflict.
What Was The Grand Remonstrance
Abuse of Power
The Remonstrance accused King Charles I of attempting to subvert the fundamental laws and principles of government. It claimed that he had engaged in a “malignant and pernicious design” against the rights and liberties of his subjects, undermining parliamentary authority and governance
Illegal Taxation
Parliament criticized Charles for raising taxes without parliamentary consent. This practice was viewed as a violation of established legal norms, leading to widespread resentment among members of Parliament and the public alike
Religious Reforms and Influence of Papists
The document expressed strong opposition to the king’s religious policies, particularly those influenced by Roman Catholicism. It called for the removal of bishops from Parliament and condemned what it described as “ecclesiastical tyranny” exercised by corrupt clergy. The Remonstrance framed these issues within a context of a supposed conspiracy to undermine Protestantism in England.
Corruption and Unwise Counselors
The Grand Remonstrance criticized Charles for surrounding himself with advisors who were deemed untrustworthy and corrupt. It demanded a purge of such officials, asserting that their influence led to poor governance and decisions detrimental to the kingdom
Call for Parliamentary Authority in Appointments
The document demanded that Parliament have a say in the appointment of royal ministers, reflecting a desire for greater parliamentary control over governance. This was seen as essential for ensuring that officials were accountable to Parliament rather than solely to the king.
Establishment of a General Synod
The Remonstrance proposed convening a General Synod composed of learned divines to address issues within the Church of England, aiming to reform church governance and practices that were viewed as oppressive or unnecessary.
These grievances collectively represented a significant challenge to King Charles I’s authority and were pivotal in escalating tensions that ultimately led to the English Civil War. The Grand Remonstrance not only articulated Parliament’s discontent but also sought to rally public support against perceived royal overreach.
The Nineteen Propositions
The **Long Parliament** demanded more power for several key reasons, reflecting the broader political and social tensions of the time. Here are the main motivations behind their push for increased authority:
Response to Royal Tyranny
Members of the Long Parliament were deeply concerned about King Charles I’s perceived tyranny and his attempts to rule without parliamentary consent. They viewed his actions, such as dissolving Parliament and imposing taxes without approval, as violations of their rights and liberties. The desire to limit the king’s power was driven by a commitment to safeguard parliamentary authority and prevent future abuses.
Desire for Accountability
The Long Parliament sought to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their actions. They aimed to establish a system where ministers would be answerable to Parliament rather than acting solely at the king’s discretion. This included demands for parliamentary approval of royal appointments and oversight of government policies, reflecting a shift towards a more representative form of governance.
Control Over Military Forces
The Long Parliament wanted control over the militia and military forces as a means of ensuring that the king could not use military power against them or the populace. By asserting authority over military matters, they aimed to protect themselves from potential royalist aggression and ensure that any military action would be sanctioned by Parliament.
Religious Reforms
Religious tensions played a significant role in the Long Parliament’s demands. Many members were motivated by a desire to reform the Church of England and eliminate what they viewed as Catholic influences under Charles I and his advisors. They sought to implement changes that would align religious governance with their Puritan beliefs, which included limiting the power of bishops and ensuring that church practices reflected Protestant values.
Historical Precedents
Parliamentarians appealed to historical precedents where Parliament had acted in times of national crisis, asserting that they were fulfilling their constitutional role in addressing grievances against the crown. They believed that their actions were justified by past instances where parliaments had intervened to protect the realm from royal overreach.
Civil War
With Scotland making incursions into England, and with the threats made by Parliament to curtail the Throne’s power, Charles issues and edict declaring the action of Scotland as treason, and formerly rejected the Nineteen Propositions.
The Beheading of A King
Charles was forced to flee London and his forces clashed with the Puritans and Parliamentary Army until 1645. In 1646 Charles surrendered to Scottish forces. He was placed under house arrest, and was allowed to correspond with others. This enabled him to encourage an uprising which resulted in another civil war in 1648 where he made promises to Scotland to suppress episcopacy and establish presbyterianism in England in exchange for Scottish military support to help him regain the English throne.
Finally the Puritans and members of the Parliamentary Army charged Charles with treason, with allowing foreign troops to wage war against the British people, holding him responsible for their deaths. He was beheaded on January 30, 1649.
What Does This Have To Do With Severed Conscience?
As we saw, the people of 17th century England had accepted a belief of Divine Rule of a monarch, their society was ordered around a strong, paternal hierarchy that ordered their universe. There was an opposing idea, that while they were subject, they still had rights that had been established since the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta had established a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England in 1215, promising the protection of church rights, protection from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown.
The British had accepted a monarch and as part of the monarch’s responsibilities to God, that monarch had to fulfill promises that maintained the contract with the subjects, as practiced for 400 years. But to execute a king was something that was very foreign to them. The Puritans, wanting to establish a society that worked to promote virtue, were able to evolve thinking of Britain to take a large step. Execution of a monarch by his subjects was unheard of.
In Severed Conscience, we described how we too have been conditioned. While we saying the words “liberty”, we are going through the motions and held captive while we are SHOWN potential solutions. Because we gain our information from platforms that entrain our thinking, we can be trapped to remain on those platforms waiting for the slightest sign of an answer.