Matthew Rowley. Godly Violence in the Puritan Atlantic World, 1636–1676

Le résumé fourni par la source

Between the outbreak of the Pequot War in the mid-1630s and the conclusion of King Philip’s War four decades later, Puritans on both sides of the Atlantic perpetrated more than their fair share of violence. By the end of the 17th century, Native Americans, English royalists, Irish Catholics, and Scots Presbyterians had all experienced firsthand the brutality of which hot Protestants were capable when they unsheathed their swords. Matthew Rowley’s new monograph, Godly Violence in the Puritan Atlantic World, asks how this violence was justified and seeks to uncover the complex processes by which the godly imposed providential meaning on their experiences of warfare. If all Christians in the 17th century could agree that God spoke through dramatic military events, what exactly was he saying? Which biblical and theological resources were enlisted to help interpret the divine messages that were spelled out in blood? These are undoubtedly important questions, not least since historians over the past few decades have demonstrated just how central providentialism was to political decision-making during the 1640s and 1650s. After an opening section setting out the book’s structure and methodological approach, Godly Violence shows how Puritans went about establishing when conflict was legitimate and outlines some of the problems they contended with when doing so. As well as confronting countless New Testament injunctions to peace, charity, and mercy, the godly were consistently discomforted by the multivalence of providence. Was God on the side of victors in battle? Or was he merely using them as instruments to admonish his chosen, sinful people? Almost any event could be—and was—read as evidence of God’s continued favor. The Presbyterian minister Edward Gee recognized after the Battle of Dunbar in 1650 that each side would interpret the result “as the respective quarrel of each unto them hath led them” (182). However, there was also a broader Protestant anxiety about Christians claiming divine inspiration when taking up arms. Hence, as Rowley shows clearly, most Protestant theologians were eager to argue that a holy war was a just war and vice versa. Parliamentarians in the 1640s claimed that their campaign against the king was both defensive—and therefore just—and supported by the dictates of scripture and providence.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.