Instituto Superior Del Profesorado, Dr. Joaqun V.

Gonzlez
English History II
June 2013
During the second half of the seventeenth century, England witnessed the interruption
of Monarchy through regicide and was subjected to a series of political experiments
under the command of a remarkable military and political leader: Oliver Cromwell. This
man seemed to be convinced that social improvement would put an end to the
corruption prevailing in Parliament and monarchic tyranny. Also, he was said to believe
religious transformation was the best mean to achieve those goals. The purpose of the
current essay is to contrast and compare the ways in which the authors Morgan K. O.
(1993), Kishlansky M. (1997) and Schultz H. (1971) describe the role of religion in
Oliver Cromwells political actions.

As it is usually the case with religion, Calvinism acted as a structural guide for
Cromwells both private and public life and since he was an orthodox Calvinist,
(Morgan, 1993, 376) harsh discipline and unbendable structure as an Army leader were
to be expected. Schultz (1971) supports this by stating that He was devoutly religious
and confident that God was on his side (p. 120) At the same time, after claiming that
the victories in Ireland and Scotland were proofs of divine favour (p. 374) Morgan
(1993) establishes a parallelism between Cromwells actions, the political situation in
Britain at the time of the Protectorate and the Bible:

Cromwell saw himself in a position very similar to that of Moses leading the Israelites
to the Promised Land. () guided by the Pillar of Fire (Divine Providence manifested
in the army's great victories, renewed from 1656 on in a successful war against Spain).
(P. 375)

In the excerpt above, the author states that Cromwell not only thought of himself as a
saviour of English society but he also believed his military victories to be part of Gods
plan for him and his Army. It could be inferred that for both authors, Oliver Cromwell
was clearly guided by a sense of mission, an inescapable task given him by God
Himself. Moreover, Kishlansky (1997) quotes Cromwell on 20 April 1653, the day he
dissolved the Rump Parliament: The Lord has done with you and has chosen other
instruments for the carrying on his work. (p. 187). Such phrase provides reliable
evidence of the point made by Morgan and Schultz and also shows that Cromwell
resorted to religious justification for his actions openly. It is clear that the three authors
views coincide.
Instituto Superior Del Profesorado, Dr. Joaqun V. Gonzlez
English History II
June 2013
According to Morgan (1993): God's providence showed His people the way forward.
(p. 376). This idea of progress through the godly is also present in Schultzs text
(1971) where it is exposed that Cromwell considered that he and his supporters were
Gods agents sent to save England from the forces of tyranny, whether foreign, Royalist
or religious.(p. 124) The author seems to be referring to the main sources of distress
for politicians and people of the time; in the case of Royalist tyranny, the almost
absolutist behaviour of King Charles I and religious tyranny, the Catholic rebellions in
Ireland, respectively. Kishlansky (1997) also agrees with the fact that Cromwells
religious fervor was a key element for his successful development in politics both as an
Army Commander and later as Lord Protector of England, from 1653 until 1658:The
force of Puritan enthusiasm propelled it forward; () The strength of the godly was in
the Army. (p. 190). In addition, he provides a suitable cause for such enthusiasm: at
the time of his financial crisis Cromwell experienced a spiritual rebirth accompanied by
assurance of salvation. (p. 191) Such assurance complies with the Puritan ideal that
wealth and success were to be taken as evidence that you were amongst the ones to be
saved by God and therefore, you would be almost certain to continue to be successful.

Having executed King Charles I and beginning to implement the different political
experiments that would replace Monarchy, the Lord-Protector-to-be still needed to find
a way of keeping his beliefs steady as well as a system of government to place him as
far as possible from the role of a monarch. This is why he decided to replace the Rump
with an 'assembly of saints', a constituent assembly of 140 hand-picked men drawn
from amongst those who had remained loyal to the godly cause, (Morgan, p. 374). It
was called the Nominated or Barebones Parliament, after one of its members, Praise-
God Barbon and was meant to continue with the programme of moral regeneration and
political education (Morgan, p. 374). Kishlansky describes this Parliament as a body
modelled on the Sanhedrin of the ancient Hebrews.(p. 205) and clarifies that Even the
nominated saints were divided over questions of religion (p. 206). Also, as pointed by
Schultz (1971), the religious enthusiasm professed by all the members without much
regard for politics led this Parliament to an end (p. 122). Such statement reinforces the
idea that, although the most important function of the Barebones Parliament was to
retain control over the countrys taxation, foreign affairs and improve on societys
Instituto Superior Del Profesorado, Dr. Joaqun V. Gonzlez
English History II
June 2013
habits for the better of the republic, it did not escape the importance religion was given
by Cromwell.

Another unfortunate consequence of the strong influence exerted by religion upon

Oliver Cromwell during the Interregnum was exposed by Morgan (1993): His self-
justification lay () in the belief that he was fulfilling God's will. () he had a fatal
disregard for civil and legal liberties. (p. 376). This author also mentions that he
imprisoned men without trial and governed rather arbitrarily while doing whatever
necessary to be able to complete what he considered to be His will. Nonetheless,
Morgan seems to try to relieve Cromwells responsibility for injustices commited
during his rule by arguing that: In the early and mid-seventeenth century, most
intellectuals believed that there was a divine imperative to bring godliness, good
discipline, and order to the English nation. (p. 393). Schultz (1971) could be said to
agree on both aspects proposed by Morgan, when stating that the Puritan faith claimed
the guardianship of the saints over the sinners (p. 124). By referring to most of the
population as sinners, the ones elected by God to be saved had the duty of bringing the
damned ones closer to the Lord to prevent them from becoming harmful for themselves;
the means of doing so would be cultural and social reforms which, supported by
thinkers and intellectuals, would not come across as mere government suppression, as
the prohibition of social events on Sundays or Christmas celebrations did.

Although Kishlansky (1997) does not refer directly to the actions to be carried out by
Cromwell in order to bring a republican England to an orderly and godly existence, he
refers to the measure taken after the Nominated Parliament failed: the Instrument of
Government, a paper constitution issued by the Army Council in 1653, which, among
other measures, protected religious rights. All peaceful Christians, except Catholics
and Episcopalians, would have freedom of worship.(p. 207) This statement is
consistent with the turbulent relationship between Puritans and Roman Catholics due to
the differences in their conceptions of hierarchy and the role of icons in Church. Schultz
(1971) also agrees on this statement (p. 123) but contradicts himself claiming that
Cromwell was not intolerant of other faiths (p. 120). A more comulgating point of
view is to be found in Morgans work (1993), where he stated that toleration was
necessary for restoring the unity of God's word and truth (p. 376).
Instituto Superior Del Profesorado, Dr. Joaqun V. Gonzlez
English History II
June 2013
On the whole, although most Oliver Cromwells policies were more linked to his
Puritan faith than to patriotic impulses, he is brought forward as someone who blended
his religious sentiment into his political movements rather successfully. Apart from that,
he is portrayed as not having hesitated when insisting on reinforcing a moral code with
a religious basis, even though the inhabitants of the republic he finally ruled did not rely
on Predestination as blindly as Cromwell is said to have done. It could be concluded
that the three authors coincide on the fact that Puritan belief was the strongest of forces
propelling the actions of the Army leader, whom, by taking this religious approach to
social change, places himself at a distance from the usual pattern of those who aimed at
abolishing Monarchy.
Instituto Superior Del Profesorado, Dr. Joaqun V. Gonzlez
English History II
June 2013
Bibliography

Kishlansky, M. (1997). A Monarchy Transformed.

Morgan, K.O. (Ed.) (1993). The Oxford History of Britain. Oxford: O.U.P.

Schultz, H. (1971). History of England. New York: Barnes and Noble