Rutherford's view of Cromwell?

Status
Not open for further replies.
RamistThomist

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I am certain he viewed him negatively, but I wonder if he viewed him negatively in an absolute sense? It's been a while since I have read Coffey's biography of Rutherford, but didn't Rutherford oppose the Resolutioners who sought to bring back the debauchee Charles II? That would have put Rutherford's personal analysis in line with Cromwell's.
 
I pulled Coffey out and they didn't think much of each other apparently; Cromwell called Rutherford a liar and Cromwell gets a mention in Survey of Spiritual Antichrist. There was a radical wing of Protestors who wanted to throw the war to the English (treason) but when that became apparent and made the Protestors even more odious to the Resolutioners even Patrick Gillespie had to throw the radicals under the bus. I suspect Rutherford was not in favor of the English invasion much like Durham who told Cromwell off to his face in a sermon when he made a surprise visit to Glasgow.
 
Page 651 of the Bonar ed. Letter 329. To the worthy and much honoured Colonel, Gilbert Ker.

Much honoured and worthy Sir, What I wrote to you before, I spake not upon any private warrant. I am where I was; Cromwell and his army (I shall not say, but there may be and are several sober and godly among them, who have either joined through misinformation, or have gone alongst with the rest in the simplicity of their hearts, not knowing any thing) fight in an unjust cause, against the Lord's secret ones. And now, to the trampling of the worship of God, and persecuting the people of God in England and Ireland, he hath brought upon his score the blood of the people of God in Scotland. I entreat you, dear Sir, as ye desire to be serviceable to Jesus Christ, whose free grace prevented you when ye were His enemy, go on without fainting, equally eschewing all mixtures with Sectaries and Malignants. Neither of the two shall ever be instrumental to save the Lord's people, or build his house. And without prophesying, or speaking further than He, whose I am, and whom I desire to serve in the Gospel of His Son, shall warrant, I desire to hope, and do believe, there is a glory and a majesty of the Prince of the kings of the earth, that shall shine and appear in Great Britain, which shall darken all the glory of men, confound Sectaries and Malignants, and rejoice the spirits of the followers of the Lamb, and dazzle the eyes of the beholders.
Click to expand...
 
I've read that Owen resigned from Cromwell's employment when Cromwell briefly entertained the thought of accepting the title of king.
 
Thanks Matthew; that seems to confirm he would not been favorable of the radicals that wanted to make cause with Cromwell and throw the war.
 
I am curious (and maybe this can be a different discussion): why was Cromwell wrong in this matter? Was not Charles a tyrant? Was not Charles the persecutor of the godly people? I guess I am just confused on the issue here. Was war against the King wrong? Is it not the magistrates job (whether lesser or greater) to fight against tyrants and oppressors? I would love to understand this more indepth.
 
Andrew P.C. said:
I am curious (and maybe this can be a different discussion): why was Cromwell wrong in this matter? Was not Charles a tyrant? Was not Charles the persecutor of the godly people? I guess I am just confused on the issue here. Was war against the King wrong? Is it not the magistrates job (whether lesser or greater) to fight against tyrants and oppressors? I would love to understand this more indepth.
Click to expand...

The more I learn the more I conclude that Cromwell was just plain unstable despite the number of staid, godly men in his life. Much to their frustration.
 
Covenanted nation. The king was a lying adulterer but he was their lying adulterer I guess; the covenant was against aligning against the sects.
Andrew P.C. said:
I am curious (and maybe this can be a different discussion): why was Cromwell wrong in this matter? Was not Charles a tyrant? Was not Charles the persecutor of the godly people? I guess I am just confused on the issue here. Was war against the King wrong? Is it not the magistrates job (whether lesser or greater) to fight against tyrants and oppressors? I would love to understand this more indepth.
Click to expand...
 
Andrew P.C. said:
I am curious (and maybe this can be a different discussion): why was Cromwell wrong in this matter? Was not Charles a tyrant? Was not Charles the persecutor of the godly people? I guess I am just confused on the issue here. Was war against the King wrong? Is it not the magistrates job (whether lesser or greater) to fight against tyrants and oppressors? I would love to understand this more indepth.
Click to expand...

That's where it gets tricky. Rutherford wrote a book justifying war against Charles I. In fact, the Scots themselves rebelled against Charles' bishops, which forced Charles to call Parliament to tax the people so that he could have an army to punish Scotland., which eventually led to Charles' downfall.

And per Rutherford's comments about the godly in Ireland--that's just odd. Throughout Lex, Rex he warns of "Irish cutthroats" who will soon descend upon England. In fact, these same "cutthroats" killed "the godly" in Ireland.

True, Cromwell did dissolve Parliament and one could fault him on those grounds.
 
There were Protestant Irish and Romanist Irish, which will easily account for the different attitudes.

The covenanter swore to uphold the king's authority. The civil wars weren't technically fought against the king; it was the king's government which was the focus of opposition.

The king himself could do no wrong. The blame was always laid on his advisors, and they took the fall in each instance.
 
Can there be a covenanted nation to the Lord like Israel? If so, one that lasts for more than a short while? Since the nation had to stand for the covenant, the Protestors believed the army had to be purged. i.e. God would not allow them to win with a tainted army. You can see Rutherford's view; better no Scotland as a nation than Scotland by tainted means. And Wodrow believes why so many easily converted back to episcopacy under Charles was that at the 1638 reformation there were simply not enough true believers. The 2nd Reformation leaders, aside from excommunicating a few bishops, allowed the rest to stay. If that was the state of the ministry; well, you can extrapolate to the army, government and general populace. See Wodrow's comment below.
"I shall only add 2 or 3 remarks upon this period from the [years] 1638 to the 1660 and so put an end to your trouble at this time. 1. The Church wanted hands at that time to make a through reformation in the ministry, and because they could do no better, the whole of the clergy that had served under Episcopacy were let sit still in their charges through many parts of the kingdom. All that took the Covenant were suffered to continue, and except the Bishops and some few others, all almost were comprehended. And 21y, this corrupt part of the ministry was a dead weight in most of the judicatories upon the honest party, and even in the General Assemblies themselves the honest ministers durst scarce let things of any ticklish nature come to a vote, but carried things by the force of reasoning and their influence in their [harangues] in open Assembly. There were few or none of the received ministers able to reason with the Gillespies, Dickson, Douglas, Henderson, Durham, Baillie, and the other shinning lights of that day. I am willing 3ly to attribute to this both the long continuance of forms of prayer in many places—these read prayers were continued in Glasgow till or after the year 1645—and the common use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, which was generally in use till the 1649, when it was tabled before the Assembly, but believed to be waved and wore out by little and little after that. And the heights that were run to in these good times in ministers meddling so much in the civil affairs, that· I humbly think were a little out of their road, as for instance Mr. Henderson’s subscribing the Treaty of Ripon that was purely civil. 41y, to this same cause I attribute likewise some of the heats and heights that were run into in the lamentable difference about the Resolutions, which made the great Mr. Ja. Ferguson say that he indeed thought the Resolutioners had reason and truth on their side but they had a black and foul backing, and to this same I am willing to ascribe part of that general falling away among the ministry to Episcopacy in the year 1662, 600 of whom you know conformed, and the plain reason was because the ministry had never been fully cleansed."
​
Early Letters of Robert Wodrow, 1698–1709, ed. L. W. Sharp, Publication of the Scottish History Society, third series, volume 24 (Edinburgh, 1937), 300–304. Spelling modernized.
 
ZackF said:
The more I learn the more I conclude that Cromwell was just plain unstable despite the number of staid, godly men in his life. Much to their frustration.
Click to expand...

He had what it took to win. He wasn't in to pious defeat.
 
Why would the malignants have sided with Cromwell to throw the war? Weren't the malignants the ones who supported the papist Charles II, the man with whom Cromwell was at war?
 
They wouldn't; the Resolutioners were in favor or opening the army up to allow those declared malignants back in. The sects and those favoring English sectarianism would have favored it and were persuaded by Cromwell's argument as to why support such a king. There was a radical wing of them in the Protestor party, and while they didn't throw the war completely, they did contribute along with the protestor action of purging the army, to Leslie's loss to Cromwell that ended things.
ReformedReidian said:
Why would the malignants have sided with Cromwell to throw the war? Weren't the malignants the ones who supported the papist Charles II, the man with whom Cromwell was at war?
Click to expand...
 
So when Rutherford talks about malignants and sectaries, he's talking the two extremes, the two enemies as it were.
NaphtaliPress said:
They wouldn't; the Resolutioners were in favor or opening the army up to allow those declared malignants back in. The sects and those favoring English sectarianism would have favored it and were persuaded by Cromwell's argument as to why support such a king. There was a radical wing of them in the Protestor party, and while they didn't throw the war completely, they did contribute along with the protestor action of purging the army, to Leslie loss to Cromwell that ended things.
ReformedReidian said:
Why would the malignants have sided with Cromwell to throw the war? Weren't the malignants the ones who supported the papist Charles II, the man with whom Cromwell was at war?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ReformedReidian said:
Why would the malignants have sided with Cromwell to throw the war? Weren't the malignants the ones who supported the papist Charles II, the man with whom Cromwell was at war?
Click to expand...

Sectaries were independents and such like who supported Cromwell and his general toleration. Cromwell et al were malignant in the sense that the protesters considered them to be acting contrary to their covenant engagements. But strictly speaking the malignants were those who either opposed the covenants or openly turned back from the covenanted cause.
 
This will help me put it in perspective. When the Scots called back Charles II, were they then planning to invade England to force the Covenants upon the three kingdoms?
 
I don't know but stands to reason there was a state of hostilities since Cromwell et al killed Charles I. However I think I recall that as soon as he heard they'd crowned Charles II Cromwell invaded.
 
I've only read that the aim was the unification and protection of Scotland. What may have happened in the event of victory is speculation, but it seems likely that Charles would have considered the English crown as his own and made moves to reclaim it. Then again, as Fairfax refused to invade Scotland it may be that the sympathies of Protestant brethren may have resisted the idea of invading England.

As I understand it, the "proclaiming" and "crowning" of Charles are separated by Cromwell's invasion.
 
That may be right. And it is also true there was not much appetite for invading England as when the king himself made a surprise move to invade expecting to garner troops on the way, that did not work out and he lost and fled alone to Europe after spending some time in a tree.
MW said:
As I understand it, the "proclaiming" and "crowning" of Charles are separated by Cromwell's invasion.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top