Grade 9 Unit 3 Student handouts

The basic outline (story) of the case (from your client's point of view)	The witnesses you will call (to present evidence that supports your client's point of view)	The questions you will ask each witness (to provide evidence that will help the jury believe your point of view)

Student Handout #14: The Trial of Luther

The Basic Outline of the Case from Luther's Point of View

Luther, a monk in the Roman Catholic Church, questioned some of the doctrine or beliefs of the church. In particular, he argued that the church should not be selling indulgences. These were letters from the Pope that, when purchased, paid the penalties for sin and guaranteed that the Christian would go to heaven. By saying that indulgences were wrong, Luther was saying that the Pope, who authorized the indulgences, was wrong. But the Pope claimed to have final authority in all matters of faith. According to church doctrine, the Pope was infallible (could not make a mistake). By challenging the sale of indulgences, Luther was actually challenging the authority of the Pope and his claim as the infallible, supreme ruler of the Roman Catholic Church.

Here are some of the arguments Luther used to make his point:

• The Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, not the Pope.
• On a spiritual level, everyone in the church is the same; Popes are not significantly superior to peasants and therefore sin just like peasants.
• God's kindness can never be earned by good works; it is a free gift offered to all who believe in God and follow him.
• Popes are subject to secular authorities (non-religious government).

The Basic Overview of the Case from the Church's Point of View

The church defended the authority of the Pope by pointing to a number of Bible verses in which Jesus told Peter to take care of his church. The Pope believed that the authority Jesus gave to Peter was passed down to him. Because of this authority, the Pope believed he was infallible, which meant that he was perfect, and that it was impossible for him to make errors in matters of faith and religion.

Here are a few of the arguments the church used to drive home its point:

• Single individuals such as Martin Luther cannot determine the truth of the Bible; this truth has to be determined by a council of church leaders who are led by the Pope.
• The teachings of Jesus show that one has to perform good works to get into heaven.

Justification for the Sale of Indulgences

A bull is a formal announcement by the Catholic Church. This is a condensed version of the bull to justify the sale of indulgences, written in modern language.

The Bull of Pope Clement VI (1342-52)

When Christ died, he established a fund of good will. Through this fund people can avoid the punishment that they deserve for their sins. It is the Pope's responsibility to distribute this fund of good will to those, who by giving money, show that they are sorry for their sins. In this way, by buying an indulgence, they will be saved from punishment.

Archbishop Albert's Instructions on the Sale of Letters of Indulgence, 1517

Archbishop Albert Mainz, in Germany, arranged for the sale of indulgences in his provinces, in return for one-half of the proceeds. The other half was to be used to build St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome. The following is a summary of his letter.

We know that only God can forgive sins, and that no one deserves his forgiveness. God gives his forgiveness freely; no one can purchase it through wealth or high position or great works. Yet this is not easily understood, so to help people accept God's forgiveness, they must make the following sacrifices:

• Everyone who is truly sorry for his/her sin must visit at least seven churches to confess these sins.
• In each of the seven churches they must say five Patemosters (The Lord's Prayer) and five Ava marias (a prayer to Mary).
• They must give as much money as they can sacrifice to each church.

Archbishop Albert offered the following guidelines for minimum payment:

·  "Kings and Queens...archbishops and bishops, and other great rulers as well.shall pay at least five and twenty Rhenish guilders in gold."

• "Abbots..., counts, barons...shall pay for each letter of indulgence ten such guilders."
• "Other lesser prelates and nobles...shall pay six guilders."
• "Other citizens and trades people and artisans...shall pay one such guilder."
• "[The poor shall supply their contribution with fasting and prayer] since heaven should be open to the poor as much as the rich."

A Sermon to Encourage the Purchase of Indulgences

This is a summary, in modern language, of a sermon written by John Tetzel, a Dominican monk appointed by the Archbishop of Mainz to sell indulgences in 1517.

People live in a sinful and evil world. Since everyone is surrounded by evil, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a person to make it to heaven without the help of God.

For every sin, a person must spend seven years in the fiery furnaces of purgatory. Consider how many sins people commit in a day or a week, then multiply that by a lifetime. The sins are too numerous to count! The sinner will therefore suffer endless punishment in purgatory.

But all is not lost. The representative of God on Earth, the Pope, offers to you a letter that will guarantee your straight passage to heaven, without your having to go through endless suffering in purgatory. You can buy such a letter every time you have sins you need to confess. There is no end to the forgiveness that these letters can buy. So no matter how much you have sinned, all you have to do is buy one of these letters and you will be freed from the punishment of purgatory.

Erasmus' Criticism of Indulgences

Erasmus was a critic of the Roman Catholic Church. In a book he ridiculed those who bought indulgences as being fools. This is a summary of his critique:

In Praise of Folly

Some very foolish people think that they can live lives filled with corruption, deceit, murder, drunkenness and all manner of evil and then, with the flip of a coin into a church collection box, erase their wrongs. Then, having erased their slate and paid their debt, they believe they can resume living their evil lives without the fear of punishment. What fools! Worse yet, it is not just uneducated people who believe this garbage, but even the teachers of religion themselves believe it.

Luther Disagrees with the Church

In 1517 Martin Luther, a 34 year old Monk, nailed to the church door in Wittenberg, 95 statements that questioned:

• whether the Pope had the authority to forgive sins
• why Germans should have to pay (through indulgences) for the building of Saint Peter's Basillica in Rome.

Luther emphasized that salvation came from faith alone and not by good works or buying indulgences. Luther intended these statements to be the basis for dispute with anyone who cared to argue the matter with him. Below are summaries of some of those statements:

• The Pope has no power to forgive sins.
• Those who preach that buying letters of indulgence from the Pope will save people from punishment for their sins are wrong.
• They preach that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money is thrown into the chest.
• It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest, greed and gain may be increased, but the gift does not forgive sins. God alone can forgive sins.
• Those who believe that letters of pardon will save them from hell will actually end up in hell along with those who teach this.
• Every true Christian has a share in the benefits of God's forgiveness of sins without letters of pardon.
• Christians should be taught to give to the poor and needy rather than buy pardons.
• Christians should be taught that, when they see people in need but instead give their money for pardons, they are not buying the forgiveness of God but the anger of God.
• Salvation through letters of pardon is hopeless, even if the Pope himself were to pledge his soul for these letters.
• The preaching of indulgences and the great amount of wealth that is gained through this method causes one to question the motives of the Pope.
• What is this new kindness of God and the Pope that evil men can prevent godly people from going to hell with the gift of a few coins?
• Why doesn't the Pope, who is by far the richest man in the world, build the Basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor Christians?

Luther in Trouble

In 1518, Maximilian, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, wrote to Pope Leo X demanding that he do something about Luther. He believed that the heresies (false teachings) that Luther was spreading were a threat to the authority of the church and his government, which was closely connected to the church. Below is a summary of that letter:

Dear Leo,

Since Luther is ignoring the authority of the Popes and teaching false ideas, those who follow him will be separated from the church.

If your Holiness doesn't put a stop to these false teachings, it will not just be the ignorant masses who leave the church to follow Luther, but also the wealthy and powerful rulers throughout my Empire. If we shut our eyes and allow Luther and his followers to speak freely, surely the whole world will accept their foolishness rather than the best and most holy teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sincerely,

Maximilian

The Authority of the Church: The Church's Case Against Luther

The Church Has Divine Authority

The Roman Catholic Church claimed that its authority over Christians came from the Bible and the words of Jesus himself. Jesus told his apostle Peter that:

• he would build his church "on Peter" and give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven
• Peter was to take care of those who believed in Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church believed that the authority was passed down to all Popes. Because the Popes had the authority of Christ passed on to them through Peter, they believed that they could make no error in matters of faith. Moreover, because the Pope was Christ's Earthly representative, all Christians should obey the Pope.

How to Determine Truth: Pope Leo's Response

The church believed that human minds easily fall into error and that, when trying to discover the truth about God, the ideas of one individual had to be submitted to the criticism of others. Only through long and careful consideration could the truth be determined.

The church also believed that Christ revealed the truth about God to his apostles. The authority of the apostles was then passed to the bishops and Popes of the church. When questions of truth arose, bishops and Popes had to consider them carefully. Whatever they decided became the standard for truth and authority. Any individual who disagreed was a heretic (one who believes in false teaching).

Hence, the beliefs of the bishops and Popes were considered more authoritative and trustworthy than the beliefs of any individual. This did not mean that ideas such as those of Luther's should not be seriously considered. But if the church rejected these ideas after careful consideration, then the ideas were clearly wrong. To allow false ideas to circulate would be betraying the trust that Christ placed in the apostles.

Pope Leo replied to Luther that whoever did not accept the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and the Popes as the perfect truth was a heretic.

The Role of Good Works in Salvation

The Roman Catholic Church believed that people had to do good works in order to be forgiven for their sins and go to heaven. This belief was based on some words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25, in which Jesus indicates that those who have shown love and compassion to other people are true Christians, and those who have not shown love and compassion are not true Christians and cannot go to heaven. The church, therefore, believed that the forgiveness of Christ had to be earned or merited through good works.

The church's case against Luther reflects the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Luther. However, it does not accurately reflect the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church today. The Reformation marked the beginning of Protestant religions, which evolved in time in many different directions. The Roman Catholic Church has also evolved over the years since the Reformation.

The Authority of the Bible: Luther's Case Against the Church

The Authority of all Believers

Luther took the words of Jesus, which the Church based its authority upon, and interpreted them differently.

Luther believed that when Christ said he would build his church on Peter, he meant that he would build his church on the faith of Peter, not the person of Peter. Therefore, the Church was not attached to Peter or his successors (the Popes), but belonged to all of those who had the faith of Peter.

Regarding the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Luther argued that Jesus gave the keys to all of the apostles through Peter. Peter was not above the other apostles; he was representative of them. Therefore, the keys of heaven belonged to all of the apostles, who at that time made up the entire church. Luther argued that the keys of the kingdom of heaven belong to the whole church.

Luther also referred to Acts 5:29 in the Bible which says, "We must obey God rather than men."

The Bible Alone is the Source of Christian Truth

Luther argued that in the past Popes have made errors. They do fail and cannot be trusted without question. Psalms 116:11 says, "Every man is a liar."

Luther also disagreed with the view that truth can be determined by the decisions made by a group of leaders. He argued that the Bible clearly taught that God revealed truth to humans. Humans do not make or decide truth; truth comes from God.

Using the Bible, Luther also showed that:

• God does not reveal all of the knowledge about himself.
• God reveals his truth to the weak, not the powerful.
• God reveals his truth to many people, not just to church leaders.

Therefore, Luther argued, how could a single human being (the Pope) claim to have a complete understanding of all truth and be immune to error in regard to matters of faith?

Forgiveness Comes Through Faith Alone

Luther argued that people by nature are sinful and can never earn or deserve God's favour and forgiveness. Without God, people could only do evil.

As was his practice and belief, Luther pointed to the Bible to show that people cannot be saved from sin and hell on their own power: "We aren't saved from sin's grasp by knowing the commandments of God, because we can't and don't keep them" (Romans 8:3).

Luther asserted that God forgives people and gives them eternal life when they believe in him and follow him. He does this because of his great love and mercy. As Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "Because of his kindness you have been saved through trusting Christ. And even trusting is not of yourselves; it too is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good we have done, so none of us can take any credit for it."

So, Luther claimed, people do not become Christians by doing good deeds. Rather, having become a Christians, people are empowered to do good deeds.

Luther's Speeches

Luther made many speeches defending his point of view. Below are summaries of some portions of a speech that Luther made to the German nobility in 1520.

Luther defends the right of both secular (non-religious) authorities and ordinary Christians to reform the church.

The Roman Catholic Church has built three walls to protect itself from reform:

• The first wall is that the Roman Catholic Church is not subject to the authority of kings and governments. The reason for this is that church leaders are supposedly part of a spiritual class, while everyone else is part of a worldly class. Church leaders claim that those in the worldly class are evil people. This is true even if the evil people are Popes and bishops!
• The second wall is that only the Church leaders can understand and interpret the Bible. To strengthen this wall, they say that the Pope can make no error in understanding the Bible. Yet Jesus himself said in John 6:45 that all Christians are taught by God. If ordinary Christians cannot understand the Bible, what happens to Christianity when the Pope makes an error in his understanding?
• The third wall is supported by the first two, and when the first two fall, so does the third. If the Pope does make an error and acts contrary to the Bible, Christians are bound by the Bible to discipline him (Matthew 18:15-17).

Luther argues that the Popes want to see Germany "sucked dry" of wealth.

In Italy and Germany there are many rich convents, churches and land holdings. To bring this wealth under its control, Rome created cardinals and gave to them these rich holdings. This sucked Italy drier than any foreign invader could have.

Now that Italy is sucked dry, the cardinals are coming to Germany with the same purpose. We have a few cardinals already. But the Romans do not want the Germans to see what they are doing until it is already done. "Rome is the greatest thief and robber that has ever appeared on Earth, or ever will; and all in the holy names of Church and St. Peter."

Luther Defends Himself

Martin Luther defended his position before the new emperor, Charles V, and the Diet of Worms, 1521. (Diet was a term meaning assembly and Worms was the location of the assembly.) Below is an excerpt from Luther's defence.

Most serene emperor, most illustrious princes, most clement lords...I appear before you, beseeching you...to listen graciously to this my cause...If through my inexperience I have either not given the proper titles to some, or have offended in some manner against court customs and etiquette, I beseech you to kindly pardon me, as a man accustomed not to courts but to the cells of monks.

Since your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed. Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the Pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.

I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen.

Helmut T. Lehman and George W. Rorell, eds. Luther's Works: Career of the Reformer, II Vol. 32. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958, Vol. 32, pp. 112-13. Used with permission of Augsburg Fortress Publishers.

Student Handout #15: The Trial of Galileo

Basic Outline of the Case from Galileo's Point of View

Through careful study of the universe, Galileo made many discoveries that supported the Copernican view of the universe. Copernicus had argued that the sun, not the Earth, was the centre of the solar system. However, the Roman Catholic church would not allow Galileo to believe or teach the Copernican view.

The church argued that the Copernican view was contrary to Holy Scriptures because of several references in the Bible to the sun rising and setting and the Earth standing still.

Galileo responded to the Church's arguments by saying that the Bible was written in common sense language so that ordinary people could understand it. It was not meant to be a scientific textbook; rather, its main purpose was to tell people how they could know God.

By holding the Copernican view of the universe, Galileo was denying that the church had the authority to interpret scripture for all Christians.

Basic Outline of the Case from the Church's Point of View

For centuries the church accepted the Ptolemaic view of the universe. Ptolemy, who lived in the second century A.D., believed that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, and that everything--sun, stars, and other planets-revolved around it. The church found verses in the Bible that it believed supported the Ptolemaic view.

When Galileo began to teach and publish material that supported the Copernican view of the universe, as opposed to the Ptolemaic view, he was contradicting the teachings of the church and the Bible. In other words, Galileo was questioning the Church's authority and its claim to know and teach the truth. This could cause others to doubt the church and the Bible, and even turn away from the church. This, in the church's eyes, would result in these people going to hell. Another problem was that if the church tolerated Galileo's own interpretations of the Bible, other people would begin to interpret the Bible in their own way, and this would result in more heresies such as those of Martin Luther.

The church had to stop Galileo, or risk losing its credibility with the people.

Galileo's Discoveries

The following is a modern language, condensed version of an article written and published by Galileo Galilei. In this article he explains how he made discoveries that showed the Copernican system (with planets revolving around the sun) is correct, and the Ptolemaic system (with an unmoving Earth at the centre of the solar system) is wrong.

About ten months ago I heard a report that someone in Flanders had made a "spyglass" that made it seem as if very distant objects were nearby. I decided to try on my own to make such an instrument. To do this, I prepared a tube of lead and fitted a lens at each end. Both lenses were flat on one side, while on the other side one was convex and the other concave. When I put my eye near the concave lens I discovered that objects appeared three times closer and nine times larger. Then I made a better instrument that made objects appear over thirty times closer and almost one thousand times larger.

When I turned my instrument to the moon I discovered that all of the ancient philosophers were wrong. They believe that the moon is smooth, uniform and perfectly spherical. However, I discovered that it is rough and uneven, with mountains and valleys like the Earth.

On January 7, 1610, I was observing Jupiter. Because I had just made a new and more powerful telescope, I noticed that there were three small but very bright stars beside Jupiter. The stars were arranged in this manner:

   

The next evening I looked again and noticed that the stars had changed position. They now looked like this:

    

On January 10 there were only two stars, and they appeared in this position:

   

Based on further study, I discovered that there were four stars, and that all of them were revolving around Jupiter just as the moon revolves around the Earth.

The Significance of Galileo's Discovery

Galileo's discovery of four moons orbiting Jupiter was significant because:

·  One of the major objections to the Copernican system was that no one had been able to show an example of one body circling another body as Copernicus claimed the Earth was circling the sun.
·  Copernicus showed that a heavenly body could, in fact, revolve around another heavenly body other than the Earth (in the Ptolemaic system, the Earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it). Therefore, Galileo proved that the Earth was not the common centre for all heavenly bodies.

The Point of View of the Roman Catholic Church: The Church Should Have Final Authority in Matters of Science

The following is a contemporary language summary of the actual charges that the Roman Catholic Church brought against Galileo in 1616:

The Charge Against Galileo

You, Galileo, in 1615 were accused before this Holy Office for:

• believing that the sun is the centre around which the Earth revolves, and the Earth itself rotates daily
• having followers to whom you claim these beliefs are true
• contradicting the teachings of the Bible by your beliefs
• dismissing biblical objections to your beliefs with false and foolish interpretations of the Bible.

Galileo's Heresy

It is the desire of this Holy Tribunal to proceed against the following propositions that Galileo holds, since these are threatening the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church:

• The proposition that the sun is the centre of the solar system and does not move is absurd, false and heretical because it is against Holy Scripture.
• The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system and it moves and rotates on a daily basis is equally absurd and false, as well as being theologically wrong.
,

The Arguments Brought Against Galileo by the Church

• We know from scholars and common sense that the Earth is fixed and that the sun and stars move.
• Galileo openly contradicts Holy Scripture. Psalm 92 says, "For he hath established the world which shall not be moved;" and Ecclesiastes 1 says, "but the Earth standeth forever."
• Scripture clearly describes the motion of the sun. Ecclesiastes 1 says, "The sun rises and sets, and hurries around to rise again."
• Joshua 10 recounts a miracle in which Joshua told the sun to stop: "'Move not, O Sun, toward Babylon; nor thou, O Moon, toward the Valley of Ajalonm.' So the Sun stood still in the midst of heaven and hastened not to go down for the space of one day."
• Galileo says that water exists on the moon and the planets, but this cannot be. As Aristotle and other great scholars argued, these bodies never change throughout time. Galileo also describes mountains on the moons and other planets, and so speaks very negatively of the homes of angels and lessens our hope regarding heaven.
• If, as Galileo believes, the four elements (air, earth, fire and water) that form Earth exist in the stars, then there must be human life there. But the Holy Scripture speaks of only one world and one created human species, so this belief is against Holy Scripture. Hence, Galileo may be reviving the heresy that Christ had to die again for the people who inhabit the stars.
• Galileo's ideas are scandalous and harmful. All schools teach a theory of heaven and Earth that conforms to the great scholars of history and the Bible. Any other theory that is taught seeks to destroy this philosophy and this theology.
• Holy Scripture teaches us to "seek nothing higher, nor attempt to know more than it is necessary to know." It also teaches that "the diligent searcher of majesty is overcome by vain-glory (pride)." Galileo ignores this advice and studies the universe so that he can make theories as he pleases. The Roman Philosopher Cato rightly taught us to "leave secret things to God, and to permit Heaven to inquire concerning them; for he who is mortal should concern himself with mortal things."

The First Charge Against Galileo

This is a summary of an original document in which the Church explains its first judgement against Galileo. This took place in 1616.

Since the church wanted to be lenient with you, we decided to let you go if you would promise to give up your beliefs, and to stop teaching or defending them. When you talk about these ideas, you may only speak of them as being hypotheses, not facts. Since you have promised to do so, you have been dismissed.

To prevent these evil beliefs from damaging the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, we have issued a decree banning all of the books that teach these beliefs. We have also declared these beliefs to be false and completely contrary to Scripture.

Galileo Publishes his Discoveries

In 1632, sixteen years after the first judgement was passed against him, Galileo published a book defending his view that the sun was the centre of the solar system, and that the Earth both revolved around the sun and rotated on its axis.

The book, entitled Dialogue on the Two Greatest Systems in the World, was a discussion between two imaginary men. One man defended the Ptolemaic system that the Church believed to be true and the other defended Galileo's view. However, the man who defended the Ptolemaic system was portrayed as a simple fool and his arguments were easily destroyed by the man who believed Galileo's view.

Throughout Europe, Galileo's book was received with great excitement. Many saw it as the most important book ever printed.

In order to get the book published, Galileo needed the permission of the Roman Catholic Church. He was able to get this permission. However, when certain church leaders saw the book they were extremely upset. They believed that the fool who defended the Ptolemaic system represented the church.

Galileo Defends his Publication: The Church Should Not Have Final Authority in Science

In a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo explained why he published his book. This is a summary of that letter:

The Church believes that the Bible is free of error. Since one can read in the Bible that the sun moves and the Earth stands still, then anyone who disagrees with this is saying that the Bible has errors.

I do believe that the Bible has no untruths as long as its true meaning is understood. But we must remember that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written for ordinary, uneducated people. They describe physical events so that all can understand them. God did not intend that the Bible should give scientifically accurate explanations of ordinary physical events.

Given this, it seems that when physical problems are discussed, we should not expect to find answers about them in Scripture. Rather, answers should be found on the basis of scientific demonstrations. This does not in any way take away from the value of the Scripture. But Scripture exists to inform people about the truth of God. This truth cannot be discovered through science.

The Bible is concerned with the salvation of people. Since there is no instruction on scientific matters in the Bible, these issues are obviously not important for salvation: "The intention of the (Scriptures) is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes." Therefore, how can the Church say that in order to be a Christian you have to believe that the Ptolemaic system is correct and that my ideas are wrong?

In order to eliminate the Copernican view of the universe (Earth revolves around sun), it would be necessary to ban the whole science of astronomy. Furthermore, it would be necessary to tell men not to look at the sky and not to see what they see, and not to understand what they know. For there is much evidence that cannot be explained by the Ptolemaic system but which supports the Copernican system, and the amount of evidence is growing daily. But to do this now, after the Copernican view has been tolerated for many years, would be contrary to the truth.

The Church's Reaction to the Publication of Galileo's Book

The Church was very angry because Galileo had broken the promise he made in 1616 not to believe or teach the Copernican theory. A special church commission reported that, in the book, Galileo stated as an absolute truth the movement of the Earth, instead of as a hypothesis. The Church also believed that Galileo had deceived them into allowing the publication of the book.

The Church's Justification of its Position

• The Church believed that everything must be interpreted exactly as the Bible says it is.
• In the Bible, Moses says that God created the universe in one day, and the rest of the Earth in five days. Since Galileo claimed that the Earth was just a speck in many universes, it does not seem reasonable that God would have spent so much time on a speck and so little time creating the rest of the universe. Where were heaven and hell located in all of these universes?
• God could not look down from heaven onto his people on Earth if the Earth was travelling at such a great speed around the sun.
• Moses said that God planted the sun, moon and stars in the sky and that the sky was heaven.
• God lives in heaven, since the Bible says that God came down from heaven and Jesus went up into heaven. If Galileo is correct, how could God keep track of his people with the Earth in orbit?

Why was the Church so Upset with Galileo?

The Roman Catholic Church was worried that Galileo's theories would cause people to doubt the church's position on the truthfulness of the Bible. If this was allowed to happen:

• people would begin to question the authority of the church
• many would begin to interpret the Bible in their own way
• many would turn away from the church.

In order to maintain its authority, the church believed it had no choice but to silence Galileo. "May God forgive him," said Pope Urban VIII, "for having involved himself in these questions....There is one argument which nobody has been ever able to refute, which is that God is Almighty and may do as He sees fit. If He can do all, why question His works?"

Adapted from Galileo Galilei. In Brandt Aymar and Edward Sagarin. A Pictorial History of the World's Great Trials New York: Bonanza Books, 1985, pp. 56-57. Used with permission of Bonanza Books.

Student Handout #16: The Trial of Charles I

Basic Outline of the Case from the King's Point of View

King Charles I believed in the divine right of kings. He believed that he was appointed by God and did not have to answer to anyone except God. Because he was God's representative, he was most able to provide the people with peace and justice. He was extremely annoyed, therefore, at Parliament that kept interfering with him. Parliament was trying to gain more and more of the power that the King believed was rightfully his. Charles finally became so tired of Parliament that he tried to arrest its leaders. The Parliament resisted and war was on. In the bloody civil war that followed, the King fought for himself and what he believed was best for the people of England. The parliamentarians had brought divisions and war to the country; the King tried to reassert his control so that peace and justice would once again reign.

Basic Outline of the Case from Parliament's Point of View

It was the view of Parliament that society had certain laws that came from God and which had to be obeyed by everyone, including the King. When the King would not obey these laws, it was up to Parliament to enforce them. It was the view of Parliament that Charles I was ignoring God's laws, as if he were above them. In order to keep the King in line, his decisions had to be approved by Parliament. However, in the case of King Charles I, by ignoring Parliament and going to war against it, he had betrayed the trust given him by God and the people to look after the interests of the people. Hence, he deserved the most severe punishment.

The Historical Events Leading to the Trial of Charles I in 1649

When Elizabeth I died in 1603, she left a large royal debt. James I, rather than paying it off, built it up with extravagant living in a luxurious court. This meant that he and his successor, Charles I, were chronically broke and had to come to Parliament for permission to raise taxes. They tried to avoid doing this because, every time they asked for more money, Parliament asked for more power. So they tried to ignore Parliament as much as possible by creating alternative money making schemes that Parliament considered to be illegal.

The middle class had become better educated and wealthy so that it now controlled more wealth than the aristrocracy. Many of the middle class people were either Puritans (in England) or Presbyterians (in Scotland). Their education and wealth, as well as their religious views, led to a demand for more political power for Parliament, which had to come at the expense of the King.

James I and Charles I gave the impression of being very sympathetic to Roman Catholicism, which was highly disliked by Puritans and Presbyterians. In 1633 Charles appointed William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud insisted on a style of worship that to many looked like Roman Catholicism. He refused to allow Puritans to teach in universities and he also attempted to impose a new Anglican prayer book on the Presbyterian Scots. Both the Puritans and Presbyterians believed that Roman Catholicism was being imposed on them. The Scots revolted and invaded England. Charles had to go to parliament for money to raise an army and put down the rebellion. Parliament was unimpressed by all of this.

Parliament fell under the control of radical Puritans in 1641. They persuaded Parliament to pass the following laws:

• Parliamentary approval must be given to the appointments of all the King's advisers and army officers.
• Parliament must be called every three years.
• Parliament cannot be dismissed without its consent.
• No toles can be levied without Parliamentary approval.

Parliament also had Archbishop Laud tried and executed.

The King attempted to march into the House of Commons and arrest five leaders of the House of Commons for treason. Civil war broke out between the King and Parliament in 1642.

The King's supporters, known as the Cavaliers, were made up of:

• much of old English aristocracy
• 175 members of the House of Commons and 80 members of the House of Lords
• most Roman Catholics
• some members of the Church of England
• most landed gentry (large non-noble landowners)

The Parliamentary faction known as the Roundheads was made up of:

• the newer classes-merchants, manufacturers, small and tenant farmers
• the Navy
• most of the towns
• 300 members of the House of Commons and 30 members of the House of Lords.

In 1645, the King was defeated by Oliver Cromwell's efficient and disciplined army. Cromwell represented a minority of Puritan radicals in the House of Commons known as Independents who wanted to abolish the monarchy. The majority in the House wanted to keep a king in a limited constitutional monarchy system.

A second civil war broke out in 1648 with almost all of England, the Scottish army, and most of Parliament supporting the King as a constitutional monarch. Oliver Cromwell, leading the New Model army and representing a small rump Parliament of 100 members, defeated and captured the King.

In January of 1649 a court of commissioners appointed by the Rump Parliament tried King Charles I on the charge of treason.

Ultimate Power in a Society: The Point of View of Thomas Hobbes

Key Questions

• How much freedom can society allow individuals to have and still remain orderly, safe and productive?
• How can those in authority be held accountable for their behaviour and still have their authority respected?
• Who should have ultimate power in a society?

These questions were being commonly asked in the 16^th and 17^th centuries and they are still very important questions today. In a book called Leviathon, Thomas Hobbes suggested some answers to these questions. Below is a brief summary of a passage from that book.

Men are basically equal in strength, but they have such a desire for power and recognition that unless it is controlled, they will be constantly arguing and going to war. If there is no ruling power that they fear and respect, there will be no control or stability in society. In such circumstances, very little work will get done, there will be no culture, art or technology; worst of all, there will be continual fear and the danger of violent death, and the life of man will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

When there is no ruling power to control them, men have no pleasure in society but instead experience constant grief. Therefore, to save themselves and to have a better life, men impose restraints on themselves-that is, they give all their power and strength to one man or to an assembly of men. This overruling power controls and restrains them, allowing them to have peace among themselves and to protect themselves from outside enemies.

Ultimate Power in Society: The Point of View of Kings

Key Question

• Should the power to maintain peace and order among people lie with a central authority such as a king?

Like Thomas Hobbes, King James I asked the question of who should have ultimate power in society. The answer of King James I was that all power rested in the King and subjects should no more question a king than they should question the authority of God. Just as the body is obedient to the head and small children are obedient to their father, so the people must be obedient to their king. Anything else leads to a disorderly and mixed up society. There is a natural and logical order to God's plan for society:

• the King receives his power from God
• the King, not the Church, interprets God's will
• the King answers only to God
• therefore, the King has absolute power.

King James justified his position from the Bible:

• Romans 13:1-2: "Obey the government for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power."

The Divine Right of Kings

Based on this reasoning, James I proclaimed the Divine Right of Kings in 1609:

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon Earth: for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon Earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.

Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a...divine power upon Earth....God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged, be accountable to none, to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure...And the like power have kings.... They have power to exalt low things and abase high things, and make of their subjects, like men at the chess....

J.H. Robinson. Readings in European History. Vol II, p. 219. Boston: Ginn, 1904. Used with permission.

Ultimate Power in Society: The Point of View of Parliament

Key Question

• Should Parliament have the power to maintain peace and order through laws that apply to everyone in society, including kings?

The Puritans began to question the divine right of kings approach because they believed that this power interfered with their right to worship according to their conscience, and because it interfered with their right to make a living without being taxed excessively.

The Puritans believed in hard work, sobriety, thrift, competition and postponement of pleasure. They linked sin and poverty with weakness and moral corruption. Those who were favoured by God were more likely to be those who contributed much to society through hard work.

The Puritans were willing to pay taxes provided they had some say in now the money was spent and some say in how government was being run.

They believed that Parliament ought to be the supreme authority in the land and that all humans including kings must be subject to its law. Law, they believed, had ultimate authority when it was based on the law of God found in the Bible.

They believed that they could and must justify their position from the Bible. There were two parts of the Bible that they believed were important for this issue:

• Romans 13:1-2: "Obey the government for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power." So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God and punishment will follow.
• Acts 5:29: "But Peter and the Apostles replied, `We must obey God rather than men'."

From these verses the Puritans concluded that governments should be obeyed only when those governments obey God. If the government goes against God, the people have the duty to go against the government.

The Petition of Right

In order to raise taxes for war with France, Charles I was forced by Parliament to sign the Petition of Right. As much as possible, Charles attempted to either ignore or find a way around this agreement. A summary of the agreement appears below:

• It is the law that no one should be forced to loan money to the king against his will, yet you have forced people to do this.
• It is also the law that no one should be imprisoned, or have his land and freedom taken away, or be exiled without due cause. Yet the King has lately imprisoned some people without cause.

Parliament therefore asks that the King will no longer force people to give or lend him money or pay taxes without first getting the approval of Parliament and that no one will be imprisoned illegally.

The Parliament asks this because this is the law of the land, and these are rights and liberties that the law protects.

The Charges Against the King

The following is a summary of the actual charges that the House of Commons brought against the King:

Charles Stuart, King of England: The Commons of England is deeply aware of the disasters that have been brought on this nation. You have been accused of being responsible for these disasters. Therefore, according to our duty to justice, to God, to the kingdom, and to ourselves, we have established this High Court of Justice in order that you might be tried and judged according to your crimes.

Charles Stuart, being King of England:

• was entrusted with a limited power to govern according to the laws of the land and not otherwise
• and by his trust, oath and office, was expected to use the power given to him for the benefit of the people, and for the protection of their rights and liberties
• nevertheless, out of a wicked design to hold unlimited and tyrannical power, to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people "hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament" and the people which that Parliament represents.

Charles has caused thousands of this country's free peoples to be killed. He has not only brought war against the people on both land and seas but also:

• much innocent blood of England's free people has been shed
• many families have been broken because of the tragedy of war
• public money has been wasted and exhausted and trade has decline dramatically
• much of the resources of the country, such as land and buildings, have been damaged or destroyed.

And to further bring about his evil ends, Charles encouraged rebels, both within the country and outside of it, to fight against the Commons of England.

Charles did all of this in order to increase his personal power and that of his family. He does this against the people of this nation, to whom belong justice, freedom and common rights according to the law, even though it is these same people who placed their trust in Charles to protect their rights and freedoms.

Cromwell and the House of Commons had concerns about the level of their support. On the day of the trial, groups from Scotland sent messages to the House of Commons telling them that they were extremely unhappy and upset about the trial of the King. They left the strong impression that they thought that even yet there were ways of finding a peaceful settlement to the dispute between the Commons and the King.

Whenever the King was seen being taken from his house of captivity to his trial many ordinary people greeted him with great enthusiasm and support. It seemed that many were in sympathy with the King and showed it by shouting, "God save the King" whenever they had the chance.

The King's Trial

When the King was before the courts, the main issue was whether the court had the right or authority to try a legitimately crowned king. The following is a summary of the actual transcript from day one of the trial, Friday, January 19, 1649.

Bradshaw	Sir, you have heard your charge. How do you respond?
The King	I want to know by what power I am before this Court. I want to know by what lawful authority-for there are many unlawful authorities-I am under trial. Remember, I am your lawful King, and my rule is based on the authority of God. God has entrusted me and my family line with this authority. I will betray that trust if I answer to a new and unlawful authority such as this court.
Bradshaw	The House of Commons, which represents the people of England, the same people that elected you King, is the authority which brought you here.
The King	No, I deny that.
Bradshaw	If you do not acknowledge the authority of the court, it will proceed anyway.
The King	The King of England has never been elected; for nearly 1000 years he has gained his crown by inheritance. I respect the House of Commons, but Parliament is also made up of a House of Lords and the King. Who represents the House of Lords and the King in this trial?
Bradshaw	We are satisfied with our authority, for it is the authority of God and the people of England.
The King	It is not your satisfaction that should decide the issue.

At this point, the court was adjourned for the weekend. It resumed Monday, January 22, 1649.

Bradshaw	Sir, you will remember that last time you were here, charges of high treason and other high crimes against England were brought against you, but you questioned the authority of the court. Sir, the authority is the Commons of England, which demands that you respond to the charges against you.
The King	This court is illegal because there is no authority superior to the King on Earth. However, I stand here in defence of not just myself, but in defence of the freedom of England's people, for if an unlawful power can make laws, no one in England can be sure of his life or freedom.
Bradshaw	Sir, you cannot object to the authority of the Commons of England; all your predecessors and you are responsible to it.
The King	I deny that. Show me one precedent.
Bradshaw	Sir, we are not here to answer your questions. Will you please respond to the charges against you? Are you guilty or not guilty?
The King	You haven't yet heard my reasons for not respecting the authority of the court.
Bradshaw	Sir, your reasons do not have to be heard by the highest authority, which this court represents.
The King	Show me that authority where reason is not to be heard.
Bradshaw	Sir, we show it to you here-the Commons of England. Sergeant, take away the prisoner.

Source: Aymar, B. and Sagarin, E. A Pictorial History of the World's Greatest Trials. pp. 73-74. Reprinted with permission.

Student Handout #17: The Effects of the Reformation

The Reformation began a revolution of religious thinking. A number of religious/social paradigms were developed, which led to different views on the way societies should be organized.

Religious/Social paradigms

Catholicism	Anabaptism	Calvinism
The development of a religious ethic that emphasized obedience, service, charity and confession.	The development of a religious ethic, that emphasized a communal life style, cooperative work, sharing and group discipline.	The development of a religious ethic that emphasized individuality, hard work, productivity and personal responsibility.

Apply these different religious/social paradigms to a number of possible characteristics a society might have. Your task will be to decide what will be rejected, accepted or emphasized by the particular paradigm.

Possible Characteristics of a Society

• People should be free to be themselves.
• People ought to be obedient to their superiors.
• The private ownership of property is wrong.
• Hard work is good because it means God will select you over others.
• Cooperation is a more godly value than individuality.
• Sharing is less important than producing things.
• Charity will do more for improving society than making the economy produce more.
• Obedience is less important than being an individual and doing your own thing.
• The group is more important than the individual.
• Wrongdoing requires that the individual confess his/her sins.
• We must take personal responsibility for our mistakes.
• Service to others is the most important virtue.

Student Handout #18: Paradigm Problems

Think of paradigms as a filter. The rules, regulations, beliefs and values of the paradigm create a screen that filters certain information and highlights other information.

Renaissance	Scientific
The Church was the source of revealed truth important to humanity. Pure reason is the route to knowledge. Ancient knowledge is more trustworthy than new knowledge. The environment as God's making should be accepted as it is.	Humanity has the capacity to use logic and reason to discover the truth. Experimentation is the basis on which all knowledge is founded. Reality can be broken down so that the way it works can be observed and figured out. The environment should be seen as a machine operating according to laws that are reasonable.

Solve the problem below using the two different paradigms as a way of looking at reality. Come up with what seem to be logical conclusions from the standpoint of each paradigm.

Problem: The world you live in during the 1700s is a mixture of extreme wealth for a few and extreme poverty for many. Part of the problem is that the land does nor produce enough food for all the mouths there are to feed.

You must figure out how to use the paradigms available at this point in history in a way that will solve your problem. The points below are some of the things that you know or can easily observe about the world around you.

Productivity

What you know and believe:

• Fossils indicate that life has changed significantly over time.
• God created all life and there has been no significant change since that point.
• Plants and animals are similar to their ancestors.
• Dogs can be bred to suit certain purposes.
• There is a definite pattern to the variations one can see in the offspring of animals.
• The ways of the past are superior to the present.
• Some animals that are born seem to have better characteristics than others.
• Some people are born to be wealthy and others to be poor and nothing can change that reality.

Sources of Power

What you know and believe:

• Slave labour has been a cheap source of power for thousands of years.
• The Bible says that enslaving people is sinful.
• Horses and oxen tire easily.
• The land that produces the food the animals eat could better produce food for people.
• If a small amount of water is put into a sealed container and heated to high temperatures, the container will eventually explode.
• Coal when burned can produce a great deal of energy.

Student Handout #19: The Ideals of the Enlightenment

In the 17^th and 18th centuries, many intellectuals and philosophers developed completely new ideas about human nature, religion, learning, society and many other areas. Three main ideas or values that emerged from their work are individualism, relativism and rationalism.

Individualism

Enlightenment thinkers placed new values on individuals. In most societies before the Enlightenment, there was less concern for individuals and more concern for groups and institutions. But during the Enlightenment, the idea began to develop that single individuals were important and should have rights. It became more acceptable for individuals to look after their own interests first, and the interests of society second.

Relativism

As Europeans came into frequent contact with other cultures, they discovered that these cultures had different morals and social customs from Europeans. For example, in Europe men bowed to women to show respect; in Siam men turned their backs on women because it was disrespectful to look directly at women.

Europeans gradually changed from their belief that there could be other ways of doing things that are just as good. They began to look at truth and morality as relative, rather than absolute. Rather than just one set of ideas and values being accepted as truth, many sets of ideas and values could be considered equally true and equally valid.

This set the stage for a society that could tolerate differences in beliefs, a society in which no government or religious organization would force individuals to believe certain things. Individuals could be free to believe and act as they wished within the bounds of law. In this way, relativism is strongly related to individualism.

Rationalism

Rationalism refers to the belief that the mysteries of life and the universe can be discovered through reason and the scientific method. This reflected new confidence in the ability of people to improve life on Earth through the power of thinking. For the first time in European thought, the idea of unlimited progress, unlimited accomplishment, was possible. Humankind could learn to master nature, government and all other human problems. This attitude helped to encourage the development of technology.

Student Handout #20: John Locke Declares that All Men are Created Equal

The following is a summary of the main points raised by John Locke in a book that defended the English Bill of Rights and the idea that Parliament (which represented the people), and not the King was the supreme power in society:

Man by nature is free, equal and independent. This cannot be changed. No one can have political power over a man unless the man permits it and agrees to it. But since it is easier to live within a community in peace and safety, men willingly surrender some of their freedom and independence and give political power to another, who will do what the majority wishes.

Here are the limits that society and the law of God have established on the legislatures that represent the people:

• First they are to govern by established, permanent laws and to treat rich and poor equally.
• These laws are to be for the good of the people.
• They must not raise taxes on property without the consent and agreement of the people.
• When legislators try to take people's property away, or reduce the people to slavery, they are at war with the people and the people no longer need to obey them.

Student Handout #21: Social and Political Paradigms

In the 17^th and 18th centuries, thinkers attempted to apply reason rather than tradition to human behaviour and the organization of society. They believed it was possible to figure out what human nature is like and then organize society in ways that make it possible for people to live together happily and peacefully. John Locke developed some powerful and appealing ideas about how to organize society. His ideas were quite different from those of Thomas Hobbes, who represented a more traditional view about how to organize society.

The Basic Nature of Man

According to Hobbes	According to Locke
Humans are: ·  fearful ·  competitive ·  aggressive	Humans are: ·  reasonable ·  cooperative ·  peaceful

The Best Kind of Society

According to Hobbes	According to Locke
Humans need a strong authority to keep them in line for their own protection because they are selfish and egotistical.	Humans can live a reasonable life and need government only to pass and maintain laws that protect the rights of life, liberty and property.

Student Handout #22: Administering Social Organizations

Explain how someone using Hobbes' paradigm and someone using Locke's paradigm would approach administering (running) each of the social organizations below.

A Family

• What are the basic natures of family members?
• What is the purpose of a family?
• What rules are necessary in a family?
• Who should be involved in establishing and maintaining the rules?
• How should they be enforced?

A Business

• What is the basic nature of a business person?
• What is the purpose of a business?
• What rules are necessary in a business?
• Who should be involved in establishing and maintaining the rules?
• How should they be enforced?

A School

• What is the basic nature of students and school personnel?
• What is the purpose of a school?
• What rules are necessary in a school?
• Who should be involved in establishing and maintaining the rules?
• How should they be enforced?

A Team

• What is the basic nature of athletes?
• What is the purpose of a team?
• What rules are necessary on a team?
• Who should be involved in establishing and maintaining the rules?
• How should they be enforced?

An Army

• What is the basic nature of soldiers?
• What is the purpose of an army?
• What rules are necessary in an army?
• Who should be involved in establishing and maintaining the rules?
• How should they be enforced?

Student Handout #23: Background to the American Revolution

Who has the Ultimate Power in the Thirteen Colonies?

• Legally, Parliament was supreme in British society and British society includes all of its possessions wherever they might be in the world.
• Britain was prepared to give the colonies a considerable degree of freedom and self-government but this did not mean any kind of equality or partnership with Parliament in making laws. British Parliament remained supreme.
• Each colony was to remain totally dependent on Britain and obedient to the policies established by Parliament and proclaimed by the King.
• The fact that Parliament had chosen not to use some of these powers for a period of time did not mean that they became invalid.

The Right to Tax the Colonies

At this time, the major way in which governments raised money was to put a tax (customs duties) on goods imported into a country. Britain had imposed several of these kinds of taxes;

• Duties were paid on imported Dutch tea.
• The Molasses Act of 1733 called for a duty on every gallon of molasses imported into the colonies. Britain had neither repealed it nor enforced it.
• The Sugar Act of 1764 cut the import of duty on foreign (non-British) molasses in half but was strictly enforced by the British government.
• The Stamp Act of 1765 demanded that tax stamps must be bought for newspapers, legal documents, playing cards and other items at the user's expense. This act was repealed in 1766.
• The Townshend Act of 1767 imposed duties on imports of glass, lead, paint, paper and tea. It was repealed in 1770, except for the tea tax.
• The Tea Act of 1773 gave financial help to the East India Company by allowing the company to ship tea to America without paying duties with the exception of the existing tea tax.

The Navigation Acts

Colonies could help to increase the wealth and prestige of Britain by selling raw materials to Britain, who would process and manufacture goods from them and sell them either back to the colonies or elsewhere at a profit. In this way Britain would accumulate wealth in the form of gold, which would increase her security and power.

Acts passed in 1660 and 1696 by Parliament declared that all goods being imported and exported from Britain must be carried in British ships.

• The 1696 law stated that all basic products from the colonies must be sent to Britain before they could be exported elsewhere. This allowed Britain to tax these products.
• The Woollen Act of 1699 prohibited the colonial export of any raw wool yarn or cloth.
• The Hat Act of 1732 prevented the colonies from exporting beaver hats and limited the number of hatters in the colonies.

Controlling Tax Evasion

During the war, many American colonists had profited from illegally trading with the French and were now evading the payment of customs duties by widespread smuggling. Smuggling was a routine part of the colonists' lives and Britain had done little to prevent it over the last decades.

In order to raise more money to support the British army in North America, the British government decided to strictly enforce the Customs Acts and Navigation Acts it had passed. Therefore, they began to use the British navy to stop the smuggling that was going on in the American colonies.

Under British common law, people charged with a crime have the right to be tried in an open court of law by a jury of their peers. Smugglers brought into court were often found innocent by juries made up of colonists even though the evidence clearly showed they were guilty of the crime of smuggling. This was a clear miscarriage of justice that showed contempt for the laws of Parliament. If these laws could be ignored, then no law was safe and society would fall apart.

Because most of these cases involved smuggling at sea, they clearly fell under jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. The King was therefore within his legal right to transfer smuggling cases to this court. It was the long standing tradition of this court not to use juries, so no common law traditions were being broken.

Settlement of the Lands West of the Appalachians

The Indian peoples living on these lands had fallen on hard times. Because of the lack of competition between the British and the French for furs, the price of fur had fallen significantly.

Even more upsetting to the Indians was the increased settlement by the colonists on Indian lands. The Indians were steadily being pushed off their land and began to resent deeply the American colonists.

Pontiac, a Chief with great prestige, organized an alliance of many Indian tribes south of the Great Lakes and east of the Mississippi River. The intent of the alliance was armed resistance against the settlers taking Indian lands. Pontiac and others spoke about making an alliance with the French and driving the English back across the mountains.

Britain was very worried about this possibility and so took two actions:

• The Royal Proclamation of 1763 created the colony of Quebec and was also intended to make peace with the Indians. The Proclamation established new boundaries for the colonies. All lands west of the mountains were completely off limits for European settlement. Trade could be conducted only with a license from Britain. The Ohio Valley was denied to all the colonies in order to protect Indian rights.
• The Quebec Act of 1774 gave control of the above lands, including the Ohio Valley, to the colony of Quebec for administration. The intent was to establish better law and order and give better protection to the Indians of this area.

Special Laws to Maintain Order and Peace within the Colonies

• The Boston Port Act removed the British custom house from Boston and closed the port to all shipping.
• The Massachusetts Government Act concentrated power in the royal governor by giving him the authority to appoint members of the council (previously elected by the General Assembly). The Act also stated that his permission was required to hold town meetings, and that sheriffs (appointed by him) should select juries.
• The Administration of Justice Act allowed British soldiers to be tried in England or in a colony other than the one in which they were accused of offences.
• The Mutiny Act provided for the maintenance of British troops in America and for the use of various kinds of buildings, including uninhabited private houses, as barracks.
• The Quartering Act extended the provisions of existing Mutiny and Quartering acts and directed the local authorities of Boston to find quarters for troops inside the town itself.

Student Handout #24: The Perspective of the American Colonists

Background Situation

The time is the 1770s and most of the colonists live in the Thirteen Colonies that stretch along the east coast of North America. Many of them come from families that have lived here for a hundred years or more. For a long time they have been dependent on Britain for defence and for manufactured goods. At this point the population and industry are developed enough so that the colonists no longer feel so dependent on Britain.

There has been a major war (The Seven Years War, 1756-1763) between Britain and France, mainly over who should control various parts of the world such as Indian and North America. Britain was the big winner of this war, so much of the French Empire has been transferred to British control. The French colony of New France (Quebec) to the north was conquered by the British in 1759. Because new France controlled the Ohio Valley, it is now under British control.

The Ohio Valley is important to the Thirteen Colonies because many settlers have been moving to the area to start new farms and businesses. This kind of settlement has made the Indians of the area extremely upset because they realize they are losing this land permanently. There have been threats made by them against the settlers.

The colonists are beginning to think of themselves as "Americans". They are proud of their ability to create a frontier society out of the wilderness without help from anyone. Many colonists want the opportunity to expand further into the wilderness and conquer even more territory.

They believe society in the Thirteen Colonies is more open and more equal than the societies of Europe. As Americans they are beginning to feel they should be free to decide for themselves how their society ought to be organized and they resent what they see as interference by the British in American affairs. They believe the society they are creating in North America is superior to any that exists in Europe.

American Businessmen

These men have become increasingly frustrated with what they see as the unfair favouritism of British law:

• They see the Navigation Acts as an attempt to give British merchants a monopoly on shipping and manufacturing so they can make profits at the expense of the colonies.
• This unfair treatment has forced businesses to engage in illegal activities such as smuggling. Many colonial businessmen no longer respect British law because, in their view, it is being imposed on them in order to give British businessmen an unfair advantage.
• Therefore, they do not feel they are breaking the law by evading it; they are merely doing what is necessary to survive.
• They see the East India Company's request for special treatment by the British Government as one more example of favouritism and they are determined not to allow such favouritism in the future because it will ruin them.

Radicals

The radicals are colonists who make up one third of the population in the Thirteen Colonies. They believe that the colonies need a completely new relationship with Great Britain. They believe that America is different from Britain in three main areas. These areas are outlined below.

Legal Reasons:

• The concept of freedom and the rights of Englishmen make it clear that taxes may not be imposed on a people without their consent or that of their duly elected representatives.
• People from the North American colonies believe they are not represented in Parliament in Britain.
• They believe that the only representatives who can legally impose taxes are those elected directly by the people to local legislatures.
• Trial by jury is a basic right of every British subject in these colonies and must never be violated.

Religious Beliefs:

·  The farmer in the colonies tends to look on the clergyman as a hired hand-if he does his work well he will be paid; if he does not he can be dismissed and the colonists can do without a church if necessary.

• The religious beliefs that developed in the colonies hold that all men, through faith and leading the right sort of life, can be saved.
• This applies to people from every level of society-a gentleman or a slave--and of any religion.

Philosophical Beliefs:

• Colonial Americans have come to believe that natural laws control the physical universe and that people can come to understand and use these laws for the benefit of people.
• They also believe that governments have to be controlled by natural laws too. The colonists are impressed with the writings of John Locke, who argued that men created government as a social contract between the ruler and the ruled. The ruled will continue to obey the ruler only so long as he respects their rights.

Student Handout #25: The Perspectives of the United Empire Loyalists

The United Empire Loyalists were colonists who saw themselves as British subjects loyal to the King. They made up one-third of the population of the colonies. They were British subjects living in the colonies who wished to keep their connection to Britain and live in a united empire. Hence, they were known as United Empire Loyalists. They had several reasons for taking this position:

• They believed that it was very important to remain loyal to the laws and constitution of Britain. The King as head of the British state represented the constitution and the laws based on it. Therefore, to challenge the King was to challenge the basis of all British society.
• The laws and traditions of Britain had developed slowly over time. Traditions that were good were kept and the rest were discarded. This is the common law tradition.
• British rights were based on tradition. To overturn these traditions was really a dangerous threat to everyone's liberty. If a small group in one corner of the Empire could reject the King and what he represents, then what other traditions could be rejected by other groups at other times?
• There is a historical example to support this point of view. Just over 100 years ago a group of misguided British people revolted and murdered their King (Charles I). The British then found themselves under the dictatorship of Cromwell, who abolished many of their liberties.
• The Loyalists wondered what guarantee they had that this revolution would not also turn into a dictatorship once the King and the tradition he represented was gone.

Student Handout #26: The British Perspective

Britain had just fought the expensive Seven Years War (1756-1763) to defeat France and protect the colonies in North America. Britain was dissatisfied with the poor performance of the colonial militia in the war. It was the British who had to bear the expense and do most of the fighting to protect the colonies form being conquered by the French. The colonies had not been willing to supply troops, money and supplies for the defence of North America. Britain had to take on a huge debt for the war.

Britain felt that it was time the Thirteen Colonies started to pay the cost of their own defence. The British navy had been providing security and protection that benefitted the colonies by keeping the sea lanes open for colonial trade. The colonists, by 1774, had achieved a standard of living that was probably the highest for the average person of any country up to that time. Britain reasoned that they could afford to pay for their own defence.

The British Government

• The King was the symbol of all the traditions and power of the British state.
• British society was based on traditions of law and order that had been tested over history. Traditions that worked were kept and the King had a responsibility to resist new, untested ideas.
• Britain believed that society without a ruler would fall apart and no one would be safe or secure. The nature of man demands that there be rulers. Because human nature is sinful and corrupt, it requires someone to maintain order and discipline. The King was placed in his position by almighty God to carry out this responsibility.
• Britain believed that a king must look out for the interests of all his citizens, not just a few who think they have special rights. This sometimes meant putting the interests of the larger society before the interests of individuals or small groups.

British Business

• The East India Company was close to bankruptcy and had requested special help to survive.
• It had 17,000,000 pounds of tea sitting in its warehouse that it could not sell, partly because it had to compete with colonial businessmen selling smuggled tea in the colonies.
• Britain was reluctant to let the company fail in case it affected Britain's control of other parts of the world.
• The company wanted the right to ship its tea directly to the colonies so it would not have to compete with other independent merchants in London and the colonies. The company also wanted the right not to have to pay a tax so it could undersell the other tea merchants.

The British Military

• The military (particularly the officers) had sworn to be loyal and obedient to the King as the head of the British state. They followed their orders from the King without question.
• These men believed that the world was a difficult and cruel place where only the strong could survive. They believed that the King had a duty to maintain a strong Britain that could protect itself from all the various enemies who wanted to tear it apart.
• They had little patience with what they saw as disloyalty and disobedience among the colonists. They believed the colonists had depended on the British military for protection from the French and the Indians and now were completely ungrateful in their refusal to obey the laws of their King.

Student Handout #27: Should the Colonies Separate?

Common Sense (Article written by Thomas Paine, 1776)

Thomas Paine believed that revolution was the only alternative for the colonies. Paine was an English radical who had come to Philadelphia in 1774. This is a modern language summary of his article entiltled "Common Sense."

Much has been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Many people have tried to settle the issues, but the debate is over. Weapons will now decide the contest.

We have for a long time been deceived by sentimental beliefs. We have boasted that Great Britain protects us but have not considered that her motive was selfish; she did not protect us from our enemies for our benefit, but for her benefit.

"Everything that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries. Tis time to part. Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and America is a strong and natural proof that the authority of one over the other, was never the design of heaven...."

"...in America the law is King." In absolute countries the King is law, but in free countries the law should be king and there should be no authority other than the law.

"A government of our own is our natural right...."

The True Interest of America (by Charles Inglis, 1776)

The Anglican clergyman Charles Inglis appealed for reconciliation in Interest of America.

"The Americans are properly Britons. They have the manners, habits and ideas of Britons and have been accustomed to a similar form of government." But the British have never been able to bear the extremes of either monarchy or democracy. Democracy is unsuitable for common, uneducated people and America is too large for it.

A Declaration of Independence by America would prevent us from making peace with Great Britain. We already have every advantage of independence without the inconveniences. By declaring independence we would lose all help from our friends in England and would be branded as rebels and then treated accordingly.

America is far from being in a desperate situation. I am confident that she can settle these issues with Britain, and on good terms. A few years of peace will allow America to gain back all of her losses. America will rapidly mature and will soon be able to repay Great Britain for all her past benefits.

Student Handout #28: Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence from Britain was written by Thomas Jefferson who based his argument on the British philosopher John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1689).

The Continental Congress on July 4, 1776 made the unanimous declaration of the Thirteen United States of America. The following is a modern language summary of the Declaration of Independence.