I believe that religious persecution was the principle reason for their voyage but also feel that their discontent with the English government played a key role in their leaving as well. In sixteenth century England there were people who wanted to see reform in English religion, society, and politics. They strove to do this by restricting church membership to the pious and godly and also by wanting the state to enforce non-bending moral codes. 1 These people were called Puritans. Those who made up the Puritan group were either Presbyterians or Congregationalists.
For example in the Lincoln Articles it states that the rebels wanted “an end to suppression of religious houses” and “bishops in England do not have… the faith of Christ”. Furthermore in the Pontefract Articles, it is said that the rebels wanted “the Pope as the Supreme Head of the Church of England”, “to end the heresies within this realm.” This shows that the Pilgrimage was a reaction from the peasants after the Break with Rome. Moreover the rebels marched behind the Five Wounds of Christ, showing that the peasants were heavily influenced by religion. Also, in the 16th century religion held communities together as people prayed and paid for the rituals of the Church, so the dissolution would have affected this. Historian Geoffrey Elton says that the uprising was religious and associated with Catherine of Aragon.
This continued until Henry VIII, so desperate to produce a male heir, broke Papal control over England and named himself Head of the Church that taught an offshoot of Christianity based on the teachings of Martin Luther, the Protestant Church of England. This change did not make much difference, as the main different was the head of the Church and belief about divorce. Many more changes came after Henry died in 1547 and Edward VI became king. Edward, led by his advisors, moved England completely from Catholicism and to Protestantism. He passed laws such as making churches and bishops more plain, services be said in English and creating the Book of Common Prayer in 1549 and a refined version in 1552.
To what extent was Henry’s decision to break with Rome influenced by Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell The break with Rome was one part of the reformation in England carried out by Henry VIII and his ministers. By removing the Pope’s influence from his court, Henry became more at liberty to pass laws and other reforms, as well as gaining his much sought divorce and subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn. The break with Rome was a gradual process that began in 1529 with the ‘Reformation Parliament.’ Henry and his advisors passed various legislation and legal processes which damaged the Church financially and politically. The charge of the breach of Praemunire was a criminal charge against the clergy which was revoked after a large bribe (1530 – 1531); meanwhile, the Act in Restraint of Annates prevented Rome from its traditional practice of taking a proportion of the clergy’s pay (1532). The Act in Restraint of Appeals (1533) was a step forward for Henry – while the other legislation was primarily aimed at weakening the Church financially, this act reduced Rome’s political power by preventing people appealing to Rome against a decision made by the powers in England.
He had closed down parliament and had to think of ways of getting money without asking the parliament's help. He had used old laws like 'Ship Money', which was a special tax to help the navy he used this idea to get money off the people of England. This made him very unpopular. Another reason for why the king was to blame was the way he had handled with religion. As he was the king, he had thought that he had the power to make the Scots use English prayer books.
Exactly, why is freedom achieved only for Englishmen and not women or anyone else not of the European race? How is this considered freedom? Is this how the difference in development occurred? First off, in New England Calvinism (created by John Calvin) was the people’s fate already predetermined, causing control of the people, and some wanting to break away from the church. The biggest difference causing the Pilgrims versus the Puritans, was the Pilgrims wanted a complete separation from the Church of England, and the Puritans on the other hand.
Hector St. John Crevecoeur strongly argued that the colonists emerged towards creating their identity through the molding together of a melting pot. After the French and Indian War, the colonists realized that they were much different than the British. Written law was preferred by the colonists over “word of law” which the people of Great Britain were fond of. The group of colonists in America who opposed the British referred to themselves as the “Patriots”. The colonists also abolished primogeniture and entail which pulled them further and further away from their mother country’s ways.
At the start of king Charles reign things were already looking odd for him because the things he chose to do where completely against parliaments plans. Parliament had to know what the king was doing before he did it but because he never told them what was happening. Parliament and Charles friendship was crumbling gradually. In 1625 Charles married Henrietta Maria, the fifteen year old daughter of Henri IV of France who was a catholic she had her own chapel and priest. Puritans and protestants started to put up posters against the church and the king in 1637 archbishop laud put the people making the posters in trial and those found guilty were severely punished .
John Carroll faced the challenge to depict what democratic ideas could he incorporate into the Catholic Church. He pondered on the fact that many settlers migrated to the New World fleeing the oppression of an established church in Europe “and resolve not to duplicate that situation in the New World”(2). Settlers of America suspected that the Pope would make it difficult to American Catholics to stay loyal to this country and “to enjoy their full democratic rights”(2). Bishop Carroll concluded that he needed to persuade Americans that that was not the case. He went through great pains to prove that Catholics were in fact subject to Rome and that the Pope would only influence them in spiritual matters.
In comparison, Fisher’s opposition was more vocal, he publicly condemned Henry getting an annulment from Catherine of Aragon, he was much more active in his opposition, delivering sermons and publishing books, an example of which being Sermon Against the Pernicious Doctrine of Martin Luther (1521). In April 1524, Fisher refused to take the oath on the act of succession, which was significant because it meant that they were choosing their Roman Catholic beliefs over Henry, which was treasonous. Historian Weir said, on fisher’s death, “there was widespread outrage at the buckering of such a