[Background by Tracy: in a course I took on Church history from BJU, the author was very biased against King James and very favourable towards the Puritans. To this day, Puritanical types run roughshod over King James. Here is my feeble protest. It was not well received--which is no surprise...Sometimes when a person's whole bent goes in a certain direction, they are determined to stay that way and no facts will get in the way of their belief. Here's the letter...]
Subject: God's Sovereign Hand: Studies in Church History, Unit Two: The Church in the Reformation
Date: February 27, 2002
I have really enjoyed the study in Church History. It is well written, easy to follow and quite informative. I've just completed Unit Two: The Church in Reformation and am compelled to add a few comments and supporting attachments [Reader: the attachments came from this webpage] concerning the obvious disdain for the House of Stuart.
King James was a man that was trying to keep his kingdom together. He was not unjust because he inherited the impatient Puritans from Elizabeth. He tried to keep the kingdom together.
King James was very interested in the translation of the King James Bible. He also wrote many wonderful devotional works which are extant today though most know nothing of them. His writing on the Lord's Prayer has helped my prayer life. By presenting him as some undesirable instead of a Christian brother you are inoculating people against even searching out more about this learned King. Stephen Coston's "King James: Unjustly Accused?" (refutes the rumors of the King being a sodomite) sent me out foraging for more on King James and I have not come up short. I've created a website devoted to His Majestie at http://www.Jesus-is-Lord.com/kinginde.htm. I have a number of HM's writings that I would like to publish in the future, I'm just looking for the time to type them in. I have works such as King James' "Meditation on the Lord's Prayer", "A Paraphrase Upon the Revelation of the Apostle S. John", "A Fruitful Meditation Containing a Plaine and Easie Exposition or Laying open of the VII. VIII. IX. and X Verses of the 20 Chapter of the Revelation in the forme and maner of a Sermon" (and it is fruitful!), "A Meditation on I Chronicles 15:25-29", and more.
Who am I? Nobody. A housewife and I barely have a four year degree. But I can say that you can inoculate people from a whole body of writing by casting aspersion on character. What the Puritans did when they killed Charles I is called REGICIDE, but you present it as though they were some "freedom fighters". King Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." Those Puritans were not to be fighting in the first place--and certainly not the king (we are to honour him and he did not require them to worship the devil)--disobedient rebels.
The Puritans killed King Charles I and then WERE UNABLE TO RULE. The Lord was not with them in their REGICIDE--but this prompted no rebuke in your study. When rebel Cromwell took over HE SET UP A DICTATORSHIP AND DISMISSED PARLIAMENT JUST LIKE KING CHARLES DID (p. 97). Yet you go on to talk about his important contributions while NOT GIVING KING JAMES I ANY CREDIT WHATSOEVER. King James I INHERITED the Puritan problem, he was not the cause of it. You even give Puritans credit for the "King James" Bible on p. 99. I'm not saying there were no Puritans on the committee [I don't know but understand there were sympathizers] but they were not the only members. King James was a staunch Protestant and it was important to him that people be saved. But you give no credit to His Majestie King James. I'm not saying His Majestie was sinless, but then again neither am I and neither are you.
On page 98, you note that when it appeared that when King James II might restore Catholicism to England, that Parliament led the Glorious Revolution--but there was no mention that if they had not KILLED HIS FATHER, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXILED, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CATHOLIC AND COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED!
I don't have the time to go point by point, please forgive me, but I did want to share a few points.
for Jesus' sake,
King James VI & I Page
Home for hundreds of articles