The last English dictator did have a following
and was a very effective leader, IMO.

Yeah. I defend the crusades as a just war as well because Europe had been attacked for centuries by the Moslem.

"… an invasion of Ireland in order to crush all resistance to the new English Commonwealth and to avenge the alleged massacres of Protestant settlers in 1641-2"

Now the taking of Roman Catholic land? Well..that was some of the Protestant land priorly and is a sketchy topic. Cromwell folks didn't want another massacre to occur. This is kind of the situation that the nation state of Israel is going to be in after Hamas is destroyed for their massacre. But Cromwell did stop after he established Northern Ireland back to the remaining Protestants. That is, to the Protestants who weren't slaughtered in 1641-1642.

Thank God for just war theory.

And the Puritans in that day wore very colorful clothes. There are several paintings of Puritans in that time. The depiction in the video clip is off.

Here is a painting of John Owen. Owen was Cromwell's chaplain.





And here is Cromwell…

Sapper Redux said:

---

I wouldn't say that around the Irish.

---

You do know there were and are Protestant Irish?
Including this thing called Ulster, which used to be larger by several counties.

There has/have always been a close connection of Northern Ireland and Scotland. Remember that Robert the Bruce fled into Northern Ireland by boat for a period of time because he was a threat to the English as the first (well arguably) future King of Scotland.

How many Protestants did the Roman Catholics slaughter to start the fight? Well…more than Hamas killed Israelis recently. And Israel may be killing more in return than Cromwell did in also a just war.

"Expulsions and killings of Protestant civilians became widespread in late months of 1641. Perhaps 4,000 were killed directly and as many as 12,000 may have died in total of cold and disease after being driven from their homes. The Portadown massacre in late 1641 in which several hundred Protestants were killed."

Google

Good stuff. And my paternal last name supposedly traveled from Spain into Wales and then into Scotland. They became known as the Wallace tribe or clan. Wellish or something like that…

Was there an early form of the Inquisition going on in Spain and maybe Wales that made the Wallace's leave? I don't know. But I can only guess. The Wallace's could have been Semitic?

And OP, Cromwell wasn't exactly a dictator. He reestablished Parliament (English bicameral congress) and aided in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 which established free speech for us to copy here in our own constitution.

The Puritans forever limited the power of the monarchy for the UK for future generations.

After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, King Charles 1 would not submit to the legislative branch called Parliament.
As a result, we signed the authorization to behead the arrogant beast who claimed the divine right of kings wouldn't submit to such an authority.

Even Israel didn't always go by a royal family establishment. kings in Israel were elected by the nobility or all the Lords and family of former Kings in the language of the English.

Yeah, I'll agree with that.
The Monarchy got reestablished after Cromwell, but was never the
GOD GAVE THE ME THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING sort afterward.

Well…Parliament most certainly didn't check their faith at the door. You can even see that with 18th Century William Wilberforce devoting his life to finally ending the slave trade and opposing British involvement in the American Revolution.

All government schools do is poo poo on the Puritans forming reductio ad absurdum arguments like the rare Salem witch trials which were condemned by every clergyman in the British Colonies.

Always showing them in black and white clothes and describing them all as wearing such clothing. Here is Puritan John Harvard…of course he is wearing a black academic robe here.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I wouldn't say that around the Irish.

---

You do know there were and are Protestant Irish?
Including this thing called Ulster, which used to be larger by several counties.

---

You mean the lowland Scottish settlers who colonized Northern Ireland?

Until the English Bill of Rights were added in 1689.

We had to remove the Loyalists (wherever we could) in the American Revolution from power as well as confiscating loyalist property.

The British called the American Revolution the Presbyterian War.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

How many Protestants did the Roman Catholics slaughter to start the fight? Well…more than Hamas killed Israelis recently. And Israel may be killing more in return than Cromwell did in also a just war.

"Expulsions and killings of Protestant civilians became widespread in late months of 1641. Perhaps 4,000 were killed directly and as many as 12,000 may have died in total of cold and disease after being driven from their homes. The Portadown massacre in late 1641 in which several hundred Protestants were killed."

Google

---

I would recommend you read "Age of Atrocity" about the Tudor conquest of Ireland and the brutal Stuart massacres of Irish Catholics. 1641 didn't happen in a vacuum. The English had been butchering Catholic Irish civilians and seizing their land for over a century prior.

Cromwell's response to the Rebellion of 1641 was unbridled brutality with around 200,000 civilians dying in the war that followed to say nothing of the war crimes including killing people taking refuge in a church and prisoners of war.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Until the English Bill of Rights were added in 1689.

We had to remove the Loyalists (wherever we could) in the American Revolution from power as well as confiscating loyalist property?

The British called the American Revolution the Presbyterian War.

---

They called it the American War. There is no "English Bill of Rights," it was a law that provided rights to Parliament, and 1689 was after two kings from the Stuart line who were invited back by Parliament because they were so done with Cromwell's Protectorate. What 1689 did do was provide the philosophical groundwork for liberalism.

My mom wrote her master's thesis on the dress of the early Puritans. What she discovered was that, contrary to most depictions, their dress in the first few generations was very colorful, not simply black and white.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Until the English Bill of Rights were added in 1689.

We had to remove the Loyalists (wherever we could) in the American Revolution from power as well as confiscating loyalist property?

The British called the American Revolution the Presbyterian War.

---

They called it the American War. There is no "English Bill of Rights," it was a law that provided rights to Parliament, and 1689 was after two kings from the Stuart line who were invited back by Parliament because they were so done with Cromwell's Protectorate. What 1689 did do was provide the philosophical groundwork for liberalism.

---

Here..this is for your government schoolboy void of learning

And it did give freedom of speech to Parliament, which laid the foundation for the antifederalist to expand to everyone.

Here is the Puritan English Bill of Rights of 1689.
You will find many rights that we either borrowed or expanded in definition of terms in the Bill of Rights. Not bad considering the times. Classical liberalism (our conservatism)
has its roots in the Puritan's English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Here is the primary source.


English Bill of Rights 1689

"An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown"

"Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

"American Presbyterians are today well aware that the only active minister to sign the Declaration of Independence was John Witherspoon, president of the College of New Jersey, a Presbyterian school. And people also point to the Mecklenburg Declaration from May of 1775 where a group of local citizens of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, who were all Scots-Irish Presbyterians (one account) passed a resolution declaring independence."

"As such, one loyalist, Rev. William Jones (an advisor to the King), told the British government in 1776 that the revolution was instigated by Presbyterians who were "Calvinists by profession, and Republicans in their politics" and that "this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning." Another loyalist in New York wrote in 1774 about the Presbyterians, "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary American proceedings upon them. Believe me, the Presbyterians have been the chief and principle instruments in all these flaming measures."

American Founder John Adams later in 1821 reflected on and affirmed the influence of Reformed Christian political thought on the American Founding, writing in a letter,

I love and revere the memories of Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and all other reformers, how much so ever I may differ from them all in many theological, metaphysical, & philosophical points. As you justly observe, without their great exertions & severe sufferings, the USA had never existed.

Whether rightly or wrongly applied, the political principles of the American Revolution were, as Gary T. Amos observes in his Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, "an inheritance left to colonial Americans by earlier generations of Christian writers." These principles included the people's right of resistance, natural rights, and popular sovereignty as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule. This heritage of Western political thought had developed over centuries and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution and the founding of the new nation of the United States."

https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/#:~:text=William%20Jones%2C%20told%20the%20British,Presbyterians%2C%20"I%20fix%20all%20the

"American colonial ministers and clergy who supported the Revolutionary War were often called the "Black Regiment" because of their black robes. Their pro-revolutionary sermons and preaching were a powerful influence and moral support for American colonists prior to and during the Revolutionary War.

Prior to and during the American Revolution, American colonists of the 1700s intensely debated and discussed whether it was biblical to defend their rights and freedoms and go to war with Britain. Those who opposed revolution were called "loyalists" or "Tories" of King George III and Britain. Those who supported revolution were often called "patriots" or "Whigs" after the pro-reform political party in England.

The Bible was often at the center of colonists' discussions, sermons, and political writings regarding revolution. In addition, many widely-read historical and religious writings published prior to this period (including pseudonymed Stephen Junius Brutus's 1579 Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants) and John Locke's 1689 Second Treatise on Civil Government) supported the principles of right of resistance tyranny, natural rights, and popular sovereignty in American political thought based on the Bible. The Bible and Judeo-Christian ideas had such a strong influence on the American Revolution that some loyalists referred to the war as the "Presbyterian Rebellion."

https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/

Some loyalists referred to the revolution as a "Presbyterian Rebellion" after the Presbyterian church movement that came out of the Protestant Reformation. (The Presbyterians, as it were, governed their churches by a group of equal, elected leaders and representative courts.) While patriot colonists in the thirteen colonies comprised many different religious sects, some loyalists referred to the war as Presbyterian with a focus on the Presbyterian churches in New England where the Boston Tea Party occurred. The New England Presbyterians, along with many other religious groups in America, espoused the ideas of political resistance and popular sovereignty, of European religious and political reformers. Many such colonists, for example, favored the people's right of resistance and religious tolerance, and they opposed the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule.

https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/

Rongagin71 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I wouldn't say that around the Irish.

---

You do know there were and are Protestant Irish?
Including this thing called Ulster, which used to be larger by several counties.

---

There is lots of Catholic Irish music but this seems like the place for a Protestant Irish tune.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

"American Presbyterians are today well aware that the only active minister to sign the Declaration of Independence was John Witherspoon, president of the College of New Jersey, a Presbyterian school. And people also point to the Mecklenburg Declaration from May of 1775 where a group of local citizens of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, who were all Scots-Irish Presbyterians (one account) passed a resolution declaring independence."

"As such, one loyalist, Rev. William Jones (an advisor to the King), told the British government in 1776 that the revolution was instigated by Presbyterians who were "Calvinists by profession, and Republicans in their politics" and that "this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning." Another loyalist in New York wrote in 1774 about the Presbyterians, "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary American proceedings upon them. Believe me, the Presbyterians have been the chief and principle instruments in all these flaming measures."

American Founder John Adams later in 1821 reflected on and affirmed the influence of Reformed Christian political thought on the American Founding, writing in a letter,

I love and revere the memories of Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, and all other reformers, how much so ever I may differ from them all in many theological, metaphysical, & philosophical points. As you justly observe, without their great exertions & severe sufferings, the USA had never existed.

Whether rightly or wrongly applied, the political principles of the American Revolution were, as Gary T. Amos observes in his Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, "an inheritance left to colonial Americans by earlier generations of Christian writers." These principles included the people's right of resistance, natural rights, and popular sovereignty as opposed to the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule. This heritage of Western political thought had developed over centuries and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution and the founding of the new nation of the United States."

https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/#:~:text=William%20Jones%2C%20told%20the%20British,Presbyterians%2C%20"I%20fix%20all%20the

---

Nothing you've quoted changes what I said. One person blaming Presbyterians for the war does not mean the war was called that. The documents, newspapers, letters, etc, all called it the American War.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Some loyalists referred to the revolution as a "Presbyterian Rebellion" after the Presbyterian church movement that came out of the Protestant Reformation. (The Presbyterians, as it were, governed their churches by a group of equal, elected leaders and representative courts.) While patriot colonists in the thirteen colonies comprised many different religious sects, some loyalists referred to the war as Presbyterian with a focus on the Presbyterian churches in New England where the Boston Tea Party occurred. The New England Presbyterians, along with many other religious groups in America, espoused the ideas of political resistance and popular sovereignty, of European religious and political reformers. Many such colonists, for example, favored the people's right of resistance and religious tolerance, and they opposed the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule.

https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/

---

****. Not this partisan bull**** "history" again. The Boston Tea Party was organized and started at the Old South Church. A Congregational church (Puritan). Presbyterians we're not in any way a large group in Boston during the Revolution. There were at most 12 ministers in eastern Massachusetts. The only significant population of Presbyterians in New England was in New Hampshire after the Ulster Scots got kicked out of Massachusetts in part because their Presbyterian faith didn't mesh well with the Congregationalists. Citing two sources does not show any widespread support for calling the war the "Presbyterian Revolution."

Thanks for admitting it's about Parliament. And Britain was far from Puritan in 1689. Quite the opposite. Massachusetts lost their charter under James II and never got their original charter back, even after the Glorious Revolution. They weren't trustworthy as Puritans who harbored regicides.

Jabin said:

---

My mom wrote her master's thesis on the dress of the early Puritans. What she discovered was that, contrary to most depictions, their dress in the first few generations was very colorful, not simply black and white.

---

Black was an expensive color and typically reserved for ministers. They still expected modesty, but yeah, colors were perfectly fine and expected.

Sapper Redux said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Some loyalists referred to the revolution as a "Presbyterian Rebellion" after the Presbyterian church movement that came out of the Protestant Reformation. (The Presbyterians, as it were, governed their churches by a group of equal, elected leaders and representative courts.) While patriot colonists in the thirteen colonies comprised many different religious sects, some loyalists referred to the war as Presbyterian with a focus on the Presbyterian churches in New England where the Boston Tea Party occurred. The New England Presbyterians, along with many other religious groups in America, espoused the ideas of political resistance and popular sovereignty, of European religious and political reformers. Many such colonists, for example, favored the people's right of resistance and religious tolerance, and they opposed the Divine Right of Kings and absolute rule.

https://americanheritage.org/the-influence-of-the-bible-on-the-founding-era-the-presbyterian-rebellion/

---

****. Not this partisan bull**** "history" again. The Boston Tea Party was organized and started at the Old South Church. A Congregational church (Puritan). Presbyterians we're not in any way a large group in Boston during the Revolution. There were at most 12 ministers in eastern Massachusetts. The only significant population of Presbyterians in New England was in New Hampshire after the Ulster Scots got kicked out of Massachusetts in part because their Presbyterian faith didn't mesh well with the Congregationalists. Citing two sources does not show any widespread support for calling the war the "Presbyterian Revolution."

---

Some English Presbyterians Puritians came over after the ejection of 1662. Presbyterian Puritans were not in the majority. Some English Presbyterians Puritans conformed and stayed with the Anglican Church in England or left to Great Britain as Reformed Anglicans into the colonies.

And the only thing that separated Congregationalist Puritans and Presbyterian Puritans was church government.
While the Congregationalist were the majority of Puritans in the New World, the English Presbyterians joined forces with the Scottish Presbyterians in the Colonies. Congregationalist Harvard came first, then Congregationalist Yale, and then Presbyterian Log Cabin College which turned into Princeton.
The Dutch Reformed founded New York, originally called New Amsterdam, and have a Presbyterian church government as well. There were also Reformed Anglicans who aided in the cause of the Presbyterian Rebellion because their only difference was liturgical and church government function (Episcopal).

Jonathan Edwards in the 1740's was such a Presbyterian Puritan that some Congregationalist Puritans became Presbyterian. Many Congregationalist Puritans also merged with the Reformed Baptists because it is essentially the same church government. That is why there are very few Congregationalist Churches today. That and Congregationalist Harvard and Yale were both being overrun with Unitarianism, unlike Presbyterian Princeton which remained conservative until 1929.

Also, the Reformed Baptist found liberty in England in 1689 with their 2nd London Baptist Confession in that year when the Puritans gained power. And the Puritans weren't the only group who supported the Glorious Revolution of 1689 in Britain. The Reformed Anglicans of Thomas Cranmer 39 Article types also helped the cause along with Reformed Baptists as well.

Reformed Baptist also founded Brown University in 1764.

My family, for instance, came over from Scotland into Virginia in 1730 and were Presbyterians.

So it was a group effort and some Catholics were not loyalist in New Jersey and Maryland, for instance, and joined the fight.

But it was largely known that the Presbyterians were the most vocal trouble makers and leaders. That is why the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence was a Presbyterian.

Also, if you examine the church government of the Presbyterians, then you will find that they had a constitution (the Westminster Confession of Faith) and had an elected representative church government to make the decisions. The Presbyterians were an elected Republican form of government dating back to Geneva in the 16th Century. They were very passionate about the the new US would follow their lead. And we did.

And the Pastor of a Presbyterian church is the CEO or commander in chief, if you will, of the congressional (eldership) leadership and polity. There are some obvious similarities.

If you will tarry a while and read through the Westminster book of church order, then you will witness some very strong influences in how the USA Constitutional Republic was formed.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

My mom wrote her master's thesis on the dress of the early Puritans. What she discovered was that, contrary to most depictions, their dress in the first few generations was very colorful, not simply black and white.

---

Black was an expensive color and typically reserved for ministers. They still expected modesty, but yeah, colors were perfectly fine and expected.

---

Hey, I like that bit of info.
Just happened that when I read it, I was talking to a guy who was describing how the AmInds used brains to tan leather but the light tan leather we see in movies is produced by modern techniques.

Reaching back to the Puritan English Bill of Rights, you will notice that imprisonment and bail was limited to further freedom of religion. Quartering troops in peoples' homes became illegal. We see that one in the USA Bill of Rights because the British ignored the Colonists as second class citizens. The English Bill of rights also made cruel and unusual punishment illegal. We see that one in our Bill of Rights as well.

And the legal right of fair trial, etc.., in our Bill of Rights was developed and established on the authority of English Common Law; which was upheld by numerous scripture references and formed our US case law legal system.

Presbyterians and Congregationalists were two separate entities. There were not "Presbyterian Puritans." Such a phrase should almost be enough have the ghost of Increase Mather rise from the grave and strangle you. Yes, they were theologically close, though not identical, but the difference in governance was not some minor issue papered over in the 17th and 18th century. It was enough to create huge divisions between English and Scottish Calvinists in Britain and in the colonies. The Dutch Reformed, by the way, who also founded Queens College (Rutgers), would be similarly disgusted to be lumped into Presbyterianism. Lumping denominations is something we do today that was anathema to Christians of that era.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Presbyterians and Congregationalists were two separate entities. There were not "Presbyterian Puritans." Such a phrase should almost be enough have the ghost of Increase Mather rise from the grave and strangle you. Yes, they were theologically close, though not identical, but the difference in governance was not some minor issue papered over in the 17th and 18th century. It was enough to create huge divisions between English and Scottish Calvinists in Britain and in the colonies. The Dutch Reformed, by the way, who also founded Queens College (Rutgers), would be similarly disgusted to be lumped into Presbyterianism. Lumping denominations is something we do today that was anathema to Christians of that era.

---

I am having even more fun.

That is completely false. I took a class on the Puritans under Dr. Sinclair Ferguson at Westminster Seminary, which was founded by the former chair of Princeton Seminary by J.Gresham Machen and conservative confessional faculty who also left Princeton seminary in 1929; strongly debunks your assertion. Technically, a Puritan was one who wanted to purify and keep the Anglican church reforming from error.

Even when Puritans were outside of the Anglican Church, they were still in conversation with other Anglicans.

William Perkins 1558-1602 is another type of Puritan.

"As a "moderate Puritan", Perkins was firmly opposed to non-conformists and other separatists who refused to conform to the Church of England."

"John Brinsley (1600-1665), the younger, was a Presbyterian puritan divine who was a powerful Reformed Gospel preacher and writer. He is by far one of the best puritans I've ever read. And…he wrote one of the greatest books in Puritan Theology called, The Christian's Union, Communion and Conformity to Jesus Christ In His Death and Resurrection. It is staggering in its depth and will draw the Christian into a deeper walk with Jesus."

https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/

"Presbyterian Puritans wanted to replace the bishops with regional and national synods of godly pastors and lay elders. They expected congregations to aid in selecting pastors, but, once selected, the pastors, acting in presbyteries, were to be the controlling force in promoting godliness. Presbyterian Puritans, closely aligned with Scottish Presbyterians, gained the upper hand in the early years of the English Civil War, during which time they organized the Westminster Assembly that produced the famous Confession and other Presbyterian standards. But these English Presbyterians lost out to the congregational and more radical elements during the ascendancy of Oliver Cromwell."

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/different-types-of-american-and-english-puritans/?amp

John Knox was a preacher in the Anglican Church who favored Presbyterian church government. Knox left and founded the Church of Scotland (also called Scottish Presbyterianism).


Puritan Presbyterians Evan Tyler, Alexander Fifield, Ralph Smith, and John Field. 1644. 40pp. printed this book below on liturgy.

https://specsfinebooks.com/products/1644-presbyterian-puritan-directory-for-the-publique-worship-of-god-replaced-common-prayer

On Presbyterian Puritans in the Anglican Church before the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Their list included the abolition of the bishops, and the restructuring of the church along Presbyterian lines. This reminded James of experiences he wanted to forget. He had grown up with the democratic Presbyterianism of Scotland's John Knox, where the preacher could rebuke the King in public. This made him determined that, as Ruler of England, he would control the church and never again be subject to the discipline of ministers. "

Speaking of the Puritan Congregationalist John Owen…

"Church of England. The reason for his exclusion was that he held very firm Independent views, while Parliament was inclined to Presbyterian thought, confirmed by the help the Scots and their Presbyterian army had given in the Civil War."

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/christian-liberty-puritans-in-britain-and-america

I emailed my professor about how we know the Congregationalist Puritans left in the 1620's to America.

My question was did some Puritan Presbyterians conform in the Anglican Church/Church of England?

Dr. Ferguson took some time to write this for me.

Dear Josh,

Many thanks for yours; glad to have some news of your family.

You maybe know that scholars don't really agree about what a 'Puritan' actually was--largely because it was a term of abuse usually (like 'fundamentalist' today)--so it was the
abuser who decided what it meant (usually 'I hate you and what you stand for!') rather than the abused.
So I always use as a working definition of the 'orthodox' Puritans (Milton was a 'Puritan' but not an 'orthodox' one) that they were those in the Church of England who sought its further reformation according to a more rigorous regulative principle than had been adopted by the 'Fathers' of the reformed church of England (Cranmer etc).

Of the ministers (in pastoral charges or in academia) in this movement around 2,000 were 'ejected'/left in
1662 (The Great Ejection). But (as far as I know) nobody has been able to calculate the number of 'Puritan' ministers there were--so that it's difficult to know how many ministers of Puritan disposition 'conformed'. What is clear is that some of the best of them did conform. Perhaps the two best known examples are William Gurnall (author of The Christian in Complete Armour) and Richard Sibbes (author of The Bruised Reed and much else--Mark Dever has a good book on him). But there were others, probably a fairly substantial number. The fact is that when a group of people are struggling for a common cause or against a common enemy they tend to sink their differences for the cause and remain united--but then something happens that brings to the surface the areas in which they weren't exactly on the same page and they tend to head off in somewhat different directions And my own view is that this is what happened in 1662. Puritans were on a spectrum. So while many left or were ejected, (i) some of them probably felt that they should prioritize continuing to minister to their people over the questions related to conformity; (ii) undoubtedly some of them were under bishops who were themselves evangelical, did not want to lose good and godly men and tended to turn a blind eye if, for example, they didn't 'exactly' conform. So for these men at the local level very little changed and so they felt able to carry on their ministries as usual.
Maybe they hoped for better things so much that they did not discuss very much the question--not, 'What of the present?' but--'What will happen in the future on this trajectory--can we be sure there will be a succession of this
kind of ministry here after my time?'

I think we see similar patterns today--at least I know we do in Scotland.

Hope this is some help, Josh.

Warmly,
SBF
Sinclair B Ferguson