Try to make an argument, taking on a perspective and taking on a
Quick intro with thesis have it be a directional statement
1 2 3 main points and a conclusion
1) Imagine that you have been asked to write a book (anonmusiosly)
in England in 1640, while Charles I is still king, trying to persuade
the people trying to oppose the monarchy and overthrow the
king. What will you say? What exactly is wrong with having a kin
who looks over his people as a father looks over his children.
Make sure that your essay is crafted to appeal to a 17th century
audience, which means that most people have been taught to
believe the divine right of kings. Your argument should point out
the main flaws in these arguments as you make the case for
(Lec 2 notes will be helpful, (jan 18th reading week about university
of oxford reading), elements in the Baxter and Williams, parts of
hooker and Baxter about consent and legitimacy, misery and remedy,
agreement of the people and Putney) deal with it in detail and
criticize, grappling with divine right of king, we know from levelers
that legitimacy is impossible so the king should go.
2) If the purpose of government is to make the best life possible for
its citizens why should a gov’t tolerate beliefs (religious or
morale) that it considers to be inimical (unfavourbale) to be living
a good life? Isn’t freedom of conscious just another way of
allowing evil to flourish? Consider in particular the arguments
that Baxter and Williams make on either side of this
disagreement/ who makes the more cogent argument?
-Baxter and Williams readings, hookers readings may help, the
homiley would support Baxter.
3) The diggers (winstabley), levelers (rainsborough) and Grandees
(ireton) all agree on this: property is important to how society
operates. They agree on little else. What exactly is the relationship