Originally posted by sastark
I wonder if there are any Presbyterians on this board?
Cromwell was a good man. He overthrew a tyrant. (side note: for all the talk that has been on this board about the proper way to resist tyranny, I'm shocked to see Cromwell labelled as a "usurper". He was a Member of Parliment and therefore in a proper role to resist tyranny). Cromwell overthrew a Roman Catholic monarch. The Covenanters, bless their hearts, sought to reinstate a Roman Catholic monarch. Let me ask you this: Would you prefer a Papist or a Congregationalist? At least with a Congregationalist in power, England remained soveriegn. When Charles II came back to power, England's crown once again bowed the knee to St. Peter's thrown.
Cromwell was in no way perfect, but to slander him as has been done in this thread is simply wrong.
As a side note, Andrew, I looked up Christopher Love on Wikipedia. The article there says that Love was executed for conspiring with Scotland to overthrow Cromwell and reinstate Charles II (aka treason). It seems Love's execution was actually politically motivated (and justly so, if the Wikipedia article is accurate) and not religiously motivated, as you had implied.
Seth,
If I may, a few responses to your comments are in order.
Charles I and II, while they had Catholic leanings, were not Roman Catholic, they were Anglican. At no time during the reigns of either king did they acknowledge the authority of the Pope in England. Penal laws against Papists in England continued in force throughout their reigns. James II was much more likely to acknowledge the authority of the Pope in England, but he abdicated the throne, and his reign is not under discussion here.
As for my own opinion of the lawfulness of deposing Charles I, I believe that the Parliamentarians and Covenanters were quite right to resist his tyranny by force. It was a just cause. I have never said otherwise.
As to the issue of the Covenanters crowning Charles II king, I said earlier in this thread that this was a foolish thing to do. It was an act of naivete based on the assumption that Charles II had repudiated the tyranny of his father and embraced the Covenants which Cromwell had broken. Time proved that the Covenanters' trust in Charles II was sorely misplaced. However, not all Presbyterians were trusting of Charles II -- there was division amongst Presbyterian over this issue. I would also note that when Charles I was executed, it shocked the world. Many who fought against him were repulsed by the execution. Good men on the Puritan side had different opinions about the justice of his punishment. I already noted this facts earlier in this thread.
The foolishness of the trust placed by the Covenanters in Charles II, however, does not justify the Covenant-breaking by Cromwell that lead the Covenanters to seek a more just authority by which to resist the tyranny of Cromwell.
Cromwell did in fact break the Solemn League and Covenant. And his execution of Christopher Love was motivated by a desire to suppress the
Presbyterian party [I would note that the Presbyterian party was both religious and political, adhering as they did to the Covenants, which was true of all religious and political parties of the day]. Even the Wikipedia article acknowledges this:
He was a strong Presbyterian, the leader of the younger men of that party. In this way he became involved in a treasonable correspondence with the Presbyterians of Scotland to restore Charles II; and, with many others, was arrested May 7, 1651, and chosen to make an example of, to check the Presbyterian agitation against Oliver Cromwell and in favor of Charles II.
Christopher Love denied the charges against him. I'm sure the truth of the matter is complex. But Christopher Love is considered a Presbyterian martyr under the reign of Cromwell. If you read his biography on A Puritan's Mind or in the Soli Deo Gloria publication, you will see that the charge of treason is debatable or spurious altogether [again, note that treason in that day was very much a religious as well as a political issue]. Cromwell and his men were not above using the same tyrannical methods of suppressing Presbyterian dissent that Charles I had used. As a covenant-breaker, Cromwell lacked any more moral authority to govern than Charles I.
No one has slandered Cromwell here that I can see. The charges I have made are legitimate and backed by the historical record. I am not painting him as pure evil by any means. He was a man and like all men his character was mixed. Cromwell began well and ended up much like the man that he replaced. He was in some ways a great man and other ways small-minded. The Presbyterians of the day were right to fight with him in the beginning and right to fight against him when he broke the covenant. They were wrong to look to Charles II to lead them, however. The whole situation, as I said earlier, was complex and there is guilt and folly enough to go around on all sides. That is the sad truth of history.
[Edited on 8-24-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
to what Jacob said.
