The next most important reason for the collapse was religion and Charles’ push toward Arminianism and absolutism. The fear of Charles becoming absolutist shaped how his policies were viewed and the MP’s political attitudes. Appello Ceasarum produced by Montagu and commissioned by the King angered many MPs as it argued the similarities between Protestantism and Catholicism. This brought MPs to call for the impeachment of Montagu as they felt it promoted anti-Calvinism. Charles’ reaction to this, as he imposed his prerogative as the Divine Right Monarch, promoted Montagu to Royal Chaplain.
This book documented the acts of torture and violence against protestants, and would therefor be highly critical of those in high positions, such as More. More evidence of More’s lack of compassing and cruelty is that during his chancellorship, six people were burned at the stake. This brutal and common method of executing heretics showed More’s lack of compassion, especially towards those who did not believe in his faith, such as protestant reformer, Martin Luther. In a letter to Luther, More said “throw back into your paternity’s sh*tty mouth, truly the sh*t pool of all sh*t, all the muck and sh*t..”.
Dimmesdale. This passion was in the church (the rose) but people in the church opposed this passion, just as they opposed Anne Hutchinson. The rose symbolizes what happened to both women. Right away Anne was considered a threat to authority because of her growing number of followers. People said her meetings were disorderly, but she said she was following God.
Mary was Jesus’ mother, and there is a prayer called Hail Mary, which if she were to pray could bring her salvation. This is great representation of how Mrs. Turpin needs to gather a since of humanity and tolerance of others. Then without hesitation, Mary Grace throws the book at Mrs. Turpin, and proceeds to choke her. But before she falls asleep Mary tells Mrs. Turpin to “go back to hell where you came from, you old wort
So, for an especially devout Roman Catholic - like Mary - it seemed only appropriate that she continue in the tradition of the Middle Ages and savagely punish those whose lives were setting a dangerous religious example (i.e. Protestants.) For, what it's worth, I think the arguments I've just given you are valid. But I still don't think that they excuse Mary from what she did. Politically, it made her far more enemies and destroyed
Martin Luther’s responses to political and social questions during this time were often either revolutionary or conservative. Luther’s criticism towards the church’s practice of indulgences, and promoting sola fide can be considered to be revolutionary. However, Luther’s siding with the princes of the Holy Roman Empire during the Peasants Revolt can be seen as conservative. Indeed, when you look at the responses of Luther towards much disputed questions during his lifetime you will see that he was both a conservative and revolutionary. One of the major religious disputes during The Protestant
Out for blood all trying to tell herself that what she did was right that she isn’t as rotten as she seems. As she says in a high pitched anger, “She is blackening my name in the village. She is telling lies about me” (146). She is trying to say that she isn’t a whore that she didn’t do what she did but she did she is mentally unstable. Next, she is in denial she still believes that john proctor still loves her that he still cares for her.
It is the appearance of their second prophesy "thane of Cawdor" which misleads him and blurs his vision. "this supernatural soliciting cannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill, why hath it given me earnest of success commencing in a truth? I am thane of cawdor “ And it might be very true that it was the words of lady Macbeth, and her challenge of Macbeth's manhood that led him to commit the murder. "The values of christian humanity,acknowledge and understood by Macbeth are pitied against the more primitive code of the cavern."
William Curvino Mrs. Hook Pre AP American Literature 6 Nov 2013 Fear and Persuasion: Tools for Changing a Nation Jonathan Edwards and Arthur Miller changed the views of society with their writings using fear and persuasion. Both the authors of The Crucible and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” use fear and persuasion to influence their audience. The way that fear and persuasion are implemented in the two works is through different literary elements. “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” was written by Jonathan Edwards during The Great Awakening, and is about how God is massive and ruthless towards humans, and how God will send you to hell without hesitation for even the slightest of sins. The Crucible was written by Arthur Miller
(Wharton, 1072) The story evolves to paint the picture of a female competition in which Delphin is but a pawn, blameless and controllable by women. The women's energies were spent toward each other, but even Mrs. Slade held no resentment for Delphin and the role he may have played, she only hated Mrs. Ansley, "'I knew you were in love with Delphin - and I was afraid; afraid of you, of your quiet ways, your sweetness...you...well, I wanted you out of the way, that's all'" (Wharton, 1074). She felt that Delphin had no accountability for making his own decisions, she only blamed Mrs. Ansley. Mrs. Ansley reinforces this by confirming that upon receiving the "invitation", Delphin could not pass up the opportunity for intimacy, "'But of course he was there. Naturally he came-'" (Wharton, 1076).