Thinking about Cromwell

TryingToLearn

TryingToLearn

Puritan Board Freshman
I guess I'm just looking for anything you guys have to offer here. I've read a few older threads here such as the one asking about Rutherford's view of Cromwell and I've found it all very interesting. It seems the general view of the Covenanters would have been that his initial cause against Charles I was just but when Cromwell actually took power he pretty much went off the rails from there (though their support for Charles II is still strange to me). Obviously Owen ended up resigning. I saw it mentioned Bahnsen had a critique of Cromwell that seemed to follow along these lines. Does anyone know where that can be read? And how was he thought about in other Protestant nations, particularly among the Dutch for instance?
 
Same here. I know very little about Cromwell. I generally have a very good impression of him but have a hard time reconciling it with the way he persecuted Scots Presbyterians.
 
TryingToLearn said:
I guess I'm just looking for anything you guys have to offer here. I've read a few older threads here such as the one asking about Rutherford's view of Cromwell and I've found it all very interesting. It seems the general view of the Covenanters would have been that his initial cause against Charles I was just but when Cromwell actually took power he pretty much went off the rails from there (though their support for Charles II is still strange to me). Obviously Owen ended up resigning. I saw it mentioned Bahnsen had a critique of Cromwell that seemed to follow along these lines. Does anyone know where that can be read? And how was he thought about in other Protestant nations, particularly among the Dutch for instance?
Click to expand...
D'Aubigne is one of my favorite historians to read in regard to the reformation era. He has a work titled The Protector which fetes Cromwell. I find it a bit much. I am not a Cromwell fan. This book will try to make you one. But it gives fair coverage of his life while justifying pretty much everything he did. There are plenty of books to counter that view: Cromwell's Convicts: The Death March from Dunbar 1650 (Sadler) and The Covenanters of Scotland, 1638-1690 (Dobson) are pretty recent and show the darker side of Cromwell (treatment of fellow Christians, exiling of Covenanters - what we would label genocide and ethnic cleansing today).
 
Even David lifted not his heel against the King. So a man after God’s own heart refused to even though he had at least twice the chance, how much less so Cromwell.
 
C4MERON said:
how much less so Cromwell.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying Cromwell had less chances to kill the King? Regardless of the trial by the Rump Parliament, Cromwell was ultimately responsible for the execution of Charles I - that is why Cromwell was posthumously convicted of treason, disinterred, and hanged years later.
 
Thats what I mean regarding how he shouldnt have lifted his heel against Charles I. No. of chances not the point
 
TryingToLearn said:
I guess I'm just looking for anything you guys have to offer here. I've read a few older threads here such as the one asking about Rutherford's view of Cromwell and I've found it all very interesting. It seems the general view of the Covenanters would have been that his initial cause against Charles I was just but when Cromwell actually took power he pretty much went off the rails from there (though their support for Charles II is still strange to me). Obviously Owen ended up resigning. I saw it mentioned Bahnsen had a critique of Cromwell that seemed to follow along these lines. Does anyone know where that can be read? And how was he thought about in other Protestant nations, particularly among the Dutch for instance?
Click to expand...
Joe Morecraft's lectures (he calls them sermons) on Cromwell are good, though I think he justifies his tyrannical actions too much. He draws from D'Aubigne a lot.

D'Aubigne is good, but he has a superstitious aversion to the idea of a king being executed.

Patrick Gillespie quite controversially would pray publicly for God's blessing on Cromwell during Lord's Day services.

My personal view: Cromwell was a godly man, and he and Parliament were right to execute Charles I. But after Cromwell gained absolute power (which I don't believe he wanted to begin with), he became the very thing he hated so much: a tyrant. I think he was trying to do the right thing, but his righteous ends didn't justify his tyrannical means.

C4MERON said:
Even David lifted not his heel against the King. So a man after God’s own heart refused to even though he had at least twice the chance, how much less so Cromwell.
Click to expand...
Remember that David uniformly refers to Saul as "the Lord's Anointed," i.e., Jehovah's Messiah. Saul, in his office, was a type of Christ. Those who execute ordinary tyrants aren't stretching forth their hand against Jehovah's Messiah.
 
TylerRay said:
Remember that David uniformly refers to Saul as "the Lord's Anointed," i.e., Jehovah's Messiah. Saul, in his office, was a type of Christ. Those who execute ordinary tyrants aren't stretching forth their hand against Jehovah's Messiah.
Click to expand...
I agree that Saul and Charles I are in different categories due to being in different dispensations of the covenant of grace. However, I am cautious about justifying executing someone for tyranny - Charles I's death warrant simply stated he was guilty of "high Treason and other high Crymes."

Tyranny has a pretty broad meaning. If the "high Treason and other high Crymes" Charles I was accused of included capital offenses, I have no quarrel with a death sentence. But someone can be considered a tyrant without blood on their hands, in which case I don't think there is a justification for executing them - remove them from power, yes, but a death penalty, no.

By the way, I do think Charles I had blood on his hands, but I am pretty sure Parliament and Cromwell were primarily motivated to execute Charles I to prevent any more heirs from being produced.

A bigger question that has long been in my mind was whether or not David was right in not executing Saul. Who else should have done it? David was anointed to take his place, Saul had blood on his hands, and the people of Israel and David suffered for it. For example, after David's restoration, "there was a famine in the days of David, three years together: and David asked counsel of the Lord, and the Lord answered, 'It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.'" (II Samuel 21.1 - Scripture doesn't record this slaying, but it is likely referring to Saul's killing of the priests at Nob in Gibeah for helping David in I Samuel 22, which some like Gill state understood from Jewish tradition). David ends up handing over 7 of Saul's kin to the Gibeonites to "hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul" (II Samuel 21.6) to seemingly stay the famine. Couldn't all of this suffering have been avoided if David had killed Saul in I Samuel 24 or 26? Romans 13 is not absolute as regicide is not forbidden - Jehu slew two kings at God’s appointment in II Kings 9.24.

Is there anywhere is Scripture that states David was right not to kill Saul? When Abishai wants to kill Saul, telling David, "God hath closed thine enemy into thine hand this day" (I Samuel 26.8), David replies, "Destroy him not: for who can lay his hand on the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?" (v.9) But then David turns around and says, "As the Lord liveth, either the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle, and perish." (v.10). So:
  1. Weren't David and Saul at war (see 1 Samuel 23.8) which would justify David killing him?
  2. Isn't the answer to David's question above ("Who can lay his hand on the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?") in I Samuel 26.9 simply this: the one who God anoints?
  3. How would killing Saul covertly in a cave be any different than Jael killing Sisera with a tent peg after telling him "Turn in, my lord, turn into me: fear not" in Judges 4? Jael is praised in Scripture for killing Sisera: "Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite shall be blessed above other women: blessed shall she be above women dwelling in tents." (Judges 5.24). Where is David praised for not killing Saul?
Wouldn't David have been right to kill Saul by pursuing "lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others" and "comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent" (WLC 135)? Wouldn't David killing Saul be a "case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense" (WLC 136)?

Again, this was not a personal vendetta - Saul had already been "cast away" by God in I Samuel 15: "Because thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, therefore he hath cast away thee from being king." (v.23) "...for thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath cast away thee, that thou shalt not be King over Israel." (v.26) ..."The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to thy neighbor, that is better than thou. (v.28). David was anointed to replace Saul as king ("The Lord then said unto Samuel, 'How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have cast him away from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil and come, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a King.'" I Samuel 16.1), and when he was anointed, David was immediately empowered: "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon David, from that day forward" (v.13).
 
Northern Crofter said:
I agree that Saul and Charles I are in different categories due to being in different dispensations of the covenant of grace. However, I am cautious about justifying executing someone for tyranny - Charles I's death warrant simply stated he was guilty of "high Treason and other high Crymes."

Tyranny has a pretty broad meaning. If the "high Treason and other high Crymes" Charles I was accused of included capital offenses, I have no quarrel with a death sentence.
Click to expand...
High treason refers to making war on one's country. In itself, it is a capital crime.
 
C4MERON said:
Even David lifted not his heel against the King. So a man after God’s own heart refused to even though he had at least twice the chance, how much less so Cromwell.
Click to expand...
Northern Crofter said:
I agree that Saul and Charles I are in different categories due to being in different dispensations of the covenant of grace. However, I am cautious about justifying executing someone for tyranny - Charles I's death warrant simply stated he was guilty of "high Treason and other high Crymes."

Tyranny has a pretty broad meaning. If the "high Treason and other high Crymes" Charles I was accused of included capital offenses, I have no quarrel with a death sentence. But someone can be considered a tyrant without blood on their hands, in which case I don't think there is a justification for executing them - remove them from power, yes, but a death penalty, no.

By the way, I do think Charles I had blood on his hands, but I am pretty sure Parliament and Cromwell were primarily motivated to execute Charles I to prevent any more heirs from being produced.

A bigger question that has long been in my mind was whether or not David was right in not executing Saul. Who else should have done it? David was anointed to take his place, Saul had blood on his hands, and the people of Israel and David suffered for it. For example, after David's restoration, "there was a famine in the days of David, three years together: and David asked counsel of the Lord, and the Lord answered, 'It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.'" (II Samuel 21.1 - Scripture doesn't record this slaying, but it is likely referring to Saul's killing of the priests at Nob in Gibeah for helping David in I Samuel 22, which some like Gill state understood from Jewish tradition). David ends up handing over 7 of Saul's kin to the Gibeonites to "hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul" (II Samuel 21.6) to seemingly stay the famine. Couldn't all of this suffering have been avoided if David had killed Saul in I Samuel 24 or 26? Romans 13 is not absolute as regicide is not forbidden - Jehu slew two kings at God’s appointment in II Kings 9.24.

Is there anywhere is Scripture that states David was right not to kill Saul? When Abishai wants to kill Saul, telling David, "God hath closed thine enemy into thine hand this day" (I Samuel 26.8), David replies, "Destroy him not: for who can lay his hand on the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?" (v.9) But then David turns around and says, "As the Lord liveth, either the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle, and perish." (v.10). So:
  1. Weren't David and Saul at war (see 1 Samuel 23.8) which would justify David killing him?
  2. Isn't the answer to David's question above ("Who can lay his hand on the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?") in I Samuel 26.9 simply this: the one who God anoints?
  3. How would killing Saul covertly in a cave be any different than Jael killing Sisera with a tent peg after telling him "Turn in, my lord, turn into me: fear not" in Judges 4? Jael is praised in Scripture for killing Sisera: "Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite shall be blessed above other women: blessed shall she be above women dwelling in tents." (Judges 5.24). Where is David praised for not killing Saul?
Wouldn't David have been right to kill Saul by pursuing "lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others" and "comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent" (WLC 135)? Wouldn't David killing Saul be a "case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense" (WLC 136)?

Again, this was not a personal vendetta - Saul had already been "cast away" by God in I Samuel 15: "Because thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, therefore he hath cast away thee from being king." (v.23) "...for thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath cast away thee, that thou shalt not be King over Israel." (v.26) ..."The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to thy neighbor, that is better than thou. (v.28). David was anointed to replace Saul as king ("The Lord then said unto Samuel, 'How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have cast him away from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil and come, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a King.'" I Samuel 16.1), and when he was anointed, David was immediately empowered: "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon David, from that day forward" (v.13).
Click to expand...
TylerRay said:
High treason refers to making war on one's country. In itself, it is a capital crime.
Click to expand...

How was the relationship between the authority of the King and that of Pairlament defined? David's place in Saul's government seems to have been one of a general in the military.
 
TylerRay said:
Anointed," i.e., Jehovah's Messiah. Saul, in his office, was a type of Christ. Those who execute ordinary tyrants aren't stretching forth their hand against Jehovah's Messiah.
Click to expand...
I dont think we should kill anointed kings. Thats totally against Romans 13. Resistance can be had without regicide.
 
TylerRay said:
High treason refers to making war on one's country. In itself, it is a capital crime.
Click to expand...
What do you base this conclusion (treason is a capital offense) on Biblically? How do you define "high treason"? If your definition is it leads directly to someone's death, I would agree it is a capital offense. But it would be for violation of the 6th commandment, not for the matter of betraying your nation/land/people. If someone can commit high treason without bloodguilt (financial treason, for example), I don’t see the Biblical justification for the death penalty.
 
Sam Jer said:
David's place in Saul's government seems to have been one of a general in the military.
Click to expand...
At first. But then he becomes his replacement as king by divine appointment - this was his station when he twice had opportunity to kill Saul and refused to do so. Even pre-anointing David was a lesser magistrate, a role the Reformers saw as sometimes called to oppose a wicked ruler.
 
From my avatar you can imagine I’m for him.

His biggest mistake was not making his younger son Henry his successor rather than Richard. Second was not accepting the crown though I respect him sticking to his guns on the Republic. He did what he could with what he had, and I think he was the godliest civil ruler since King Josiah.

He knew that Charleses were untrustworthy tyrants and duplicitous to the max. History proved him right not to trust them. Charles I was an enemy of freedom and the Reformed faith. Charles II was an enemy of decency and ultimately Protestantism in general.

Cromwell wasn’t perfect, and his campaign in Ireland was over the top. But once he pacified the country he even did his best for them.

In addition to D’Aubigne, Antonia Fraser’s bio is very good. And Richard Harris’s movie Cromwell, though a hagiography, was still quite good, and remarkable for coming out of Hollywood.
 
@Northern Crofter, in responding to your above inquiry regarding David's potential exercise of lawful magisterial authority in slaying Saul as a malefactor, his choice not to do so, the seeming evil that followed after said decision, and the price paid both by Israel (in the form of famine) as well as Saul's next of kin (token restitution for the slaughter of the Gibeonites); the only answer I can muster that might provide a sliver of insight is that it was an act of faith on David's part. He chose to entrust the judgment of Saul to God, perhaps unconsciously guided by a spiritual perception of Saul's importance in Israel's history as a type of worldly ruler whose end is destruction and whose reign is destined to be supplanted by the Messiah, of whom David is the preeminent type, as per Psalm 2 and other OT prophecy. David was guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit, after all.

Indeed, it becomes increasingly difficult to reread passages of Samuel, at least for me anyway, without noticing this narrative element; Saul, like all false servants of the LORD who are given the stewardship of governance, pays lip-service to religion and may even affect a form of godliness, but his heart is ultimately set on earthly treasures. When tested in the matter of the Amalekites, whether he would obey the directives of the LORD or go his own way, Saul reveals that personal glory and gain are at the forefront of his thinking. From the perspective of a completed canon, we can see why God dealt with Saul as He did; to demonstrate the inevitable downward spiral of how stubborn disobedience and prideful living cuts one off from the multitude of blessings that are the believer's in Christ, to the point that he would solicit the aid of a medium.

In a certain sense, this contrast of exercising lawful authority versus trusting in God's own judgment is reiterated in the New Testament account of Jesus' trial before the Roman governor. Pilate had no substantive reason to withhold a verdict of innocence with regard to the inflated charges brought against Jesus by the Pharisees; morally and legally, he had an obligation to render right judgment. Yet, we find that the Lord "answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly" Matthew 27:12-14 (see also Isaiah 53:7). Peter, later commenting on Christ's demeanor before his accusers, ascribed his behavior to faith in God: "Who being reviled did not retaliate; suffering did not threaten, but He gave Himself over to Him judging justly." 1 Peter 2:23

I hope that this offers at least one relevant perspective on David's actions, or lack thereof, as relates to Saul, and doesn't diverge from the main topic too broadly. Incidentally, I think that the army and parliament acted rightly in the trial of Charles, but that Cromwell's subsequent dissolution of the Rump and his all-but-in-name military dictatorship was quite rash and foolhardy. Means matter greatly when aiming for godly ends.
 
Cromwell was a tyrant who usurped power from the Lord's anointed King, Charles I. Once the rebels had captured the King, they then purged Parliament of his supporters and proceeded to "pass" the necessary legislation for their unprecedented (and unjustifiable) prosecution and assassination of the King. And then when the House of Lords put up oppostion, the illegitimate Commons declared that legislation did not require assent by the House of Lords and they could just declare whatever they wished to be the law of the land. The subsequent trial was nothing more than a kangaroo court. Cromwell then consolidated power to himself and, unsurprisingly, not long after his death the country restored the Monarchy because it had had enough of Cromwell's gang of thugs.
 
alexandermsmith said:
Cromwell was a tyrant who usurped power from the Lord's anointed King, Charles I. Once the rebels had captured the King, they then purged Parliament of his supporters and proceeded to "pass" the necessary legislation for their unprecedented (and unjustifiable) prosecution and assassination of the King. And then when the House of Lords put up oppostion, the illegitimate Commons declared that legislation did not require assent by the House of Lords and they could just declare whatever they wished to be the law of the land. The subsequent trial was nothing more than a kangaroo court. Cromwell then consolidated power to himself and, unsurprisingly, not long after his death the country restored the Monarchy because it had had enough of Cromwell's gang of thugs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have no problem with Parliament taking arms to curb tyranny. Killing the king was a step too far. Citing Jehu is problematic because it isn't clear that Cromwell was anointed by John Owen to be Israel's new leader. In other words, I don't think the situation is parallel.
 
The anointing of British monarchs is a judaizing superstition. I'm shocked that it's being cited so as to equate them with the typological messianic monarchy of the OT.
 
TylerRay said:
The anointing of British monarchs is a judaizing superstition. I'm shocked that it's being cited so as to equate them with the typological messianic monarchy of the OT.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. My argument is a bit simpler (although the OT uniqueness also means that we can't use Jehu as an example of people who killed kings; not saying you are doing that). The person who obeys the king and pays taxes doesn't have to justify his position. He is already following Romans 13 and similar passages. The person who kills a king has to do complex justifications. I used to be a big Cromwell supporter. The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics just proved too much over time.
 
TylerRay said:
The anointing of British monarchs is a judaizing superstition. I'm shocked that it's being cited so as to equate them with the typological messianic monarchy of the OT.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure that is what people meant when they used the term. Did you, @alexandermsmith?

alexandermsmith said:
Cromwell was a tyrant who usurped power from the Lord's anointed King, Charles I. Once the rebels had captured the King, they then purged Parliament of his supporters and proceeded to "pass" the necessary legislation for their unprecedented (and unjustifiable) prosecution and assassination of the King. And then when the House of Lords put up oppostion, the illegitimate Commons declared that legislation did not require assent by the House of Lords and they could just declare whatever they wished to be the law of the land. The subsequent trial was nothing more than a kangaroo court. Cromwell then consolidated power to himself and, unsurprisingly, not long after his death the country restored the Monarchy because it had had enough of Cromwell's gang of thugs.
Click to expand...
Interesting. But where does that put the Westminster Assembly? If pairlament couldn't act in diffrence with the king... (and I know once constituted it's authority would depend on itself as an ecclesiastical assembly and not on the pairlament... but still). Does this make the Solemn League and Covenant invalid in England? And wasn't Charles I himself an enemy of the English Puritans and Scottish Covenanters? (Asking for clarifications, I do not hold either view since I do not have enough understanding of the situation to have one).
 
Last edited:
RamistThomist said:
Perhaps. My argument is a bit simpler (although the OT uniqueness also means that we can't use Jehu as an example of people who killed kings; not saying you are doing that). The person who obeys the king and pays taxes doesn't have to justify his position. He is already following Romans 13 and similar passages. The person who kills a king has to do complex justifications. I used to be a big Cromwell supporter. The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics just proved too much over time.
Click to expand...
What about a lawfully deposed king (I am sympathetic to the criticism of the actions of Cromwell/Parliament by @alexandermsmith)?

As I stated above, when David was anointed as the king to replace Saul, who had been rejected by God as king ("The Lord then said unto Samuel, 'How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have cast him away from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil and come, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a King.'" I Samuel 16.1), David was immediately empowered: "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren. And the Spirit of the Lord came upon David, from that day forward" (v.13).

I don't believe this can be disregarded as simply "OT uniqueness." When Paul states in Romans 13 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers: for there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation," this is a universal declaration. Saul was "un-ordained," resisted the power of David who had been ordained in his stead, and therefore was condemned. So does a person in such a position really have to "do complex justifications"? I'm not sure how this position and the explanation of @Laborer for the Lord answers the question of why David could not justifiably kill Saul once he been deposed and thus was an enemy of both God and his nation.

It is interesting that there is no comment elsewhere in Scripture - despite similar comments like "righteous Lot" - about David not killing Saul, but we do have Paul reiterating that Saul was removed from his office and David made king in Acts 13: "...they desired a King, and God gave unto them Saul, the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. And after he had removed him, he raised up David to be their King...."
 
RamistThomist said:
Perhaps. My argument is a bit simpler (although the OT uniqueness also means that we can't use Jehu as an example of people who killed kings; not saying you are doing that). The person who obeys the king and pays taxes doesn't have to justify his position. He is already following Romans 13 and similar passages. The person who kills a king has to do complex justifications. I used to be a big Cromwell supporter. The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics just proved too much over time.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a title immunizes a man from being judged according to the law, and punished accordingly. These are basic natural law principles.

For my part, I don't mind calling myself a Cromwellian/Cameronian/Patriot/Confederate. Sic semper tyrannus. Just call me Brutus.
 
Cromwell and surrounding circumstances are a good case in point with regard to the problems of establishmentarianism (no, not this proves the principle is necessarily invalid, but shows the historical reality of how things usually work out are not good - something to learn from, in other words). There was always a political element in the SLC, where England wanted Scottish support for their actions in Ireland. So the English parliament agrees to reform the state-church as part of securing that support. The Westminster Assembly is formed to that end, and yes, the great good of creating a phenomenal Confession results. However, the practical results in society are not nearly so commendable. The assembly recommends, and Parliament agrees to outlaw and variously punish dissenters and unbelievers. However, when your best general in the resultant war against the monarchy is an Independent, and many of his most effective lieutenants are Baptists, the legal rubber never effectively met the real-world road. There was only a limited and quite temporary effect on the actual practice of religion and the enforcement of religious laws in England. Politics and the Church don't generally mix well...
 
Phil D. said:
with regard to the problems of establishmentarianism... when your best general in the resultant war against the monarchy is an Independent, and many of his most effective lieutenants are Baptists, the legal rubber never effectively met the real-world road.
Click to expand...
So perhaps what you are really saying is that the problem with the establishment of one true reformed religion in England is that it was never really established...
 
TylerRay said:
I don't see how a title immunizes a man from being judged according to the law, and punished accordingly. These are basic natural law principles.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I agree with natural law principles, but at the same time the burden of proof is on the regicide, not on the person who just wants to live a quiet life.

Northern Crofter said:
That's quite an interesting blend!
Click to expand...

Especially since modern-day covenanters bemoan the evils of man-stealing.
 
Northern Crofter said:
So perhaps what you are really saying is that the problem with the establishment of one true reformed religion in England is that it was never really established...
Click to expand...
That is true, but a way over-simplistically stated fact. The point is that reality always gets in the way of the establishment ideal or dream. Always. Pure religion is never established, and the inherent political entanglements end up creating civil wars, or getting thousands of people killed in other ways. The name of Christ is not glorified or magnified in that. The most successful examples of establishmentarianism are with the Roman Catholic Church in its various iterations, in the sense that they were able to wield the most control over the populous, with a small caveat that many temporal and spiritual horrors were unleashed in the process.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top