Ordinarily, Cromwell was able to get for his leaders men who were
gentlemen in the technical sense of the term, but again and again there
forged to the front under him men like Pride, whose natural talents had
to supply the place of birth and breeding. He writes again: “My troops
increase; I have a lovely company; you would respect them did you know
them.... They are honest, sober Christians; they expect to be used as
men.” Again he writes, when his Presbyterian colleagues were showing a
tendency to oppress and drive out of the army men whose religious
beliefs did not square with theirs: “Surely, you are not well-advised
thus to turn off one so faithful to the cause, and so able to serve you
as this man (a certain colonel). Give me leave to tell you I cannot be
of your judgment. If a man notorious for wickedness, for oaths, for
drinking, hath as great a share in your affection as one who fears an
oath, who fears to sin.... Ay, but the man is an ‘Anabaptist’! Are you
sure of that? Admit he be, shall that render him incapable to serve the
public? Sir, the state, in choosing men to serve it, takes no notice of
their opinions: if they be willing faithfully to serve it, that
satisfies.... Take heed of being sharp or too easily sharpened by
others, against those to whom you can object little, but that they
square not with you in every opinion concerning matters of religion.”
In these sentences lies the justification of genuine democracy, of
genuine religious liberty, and toleration by the state of religious
differences. They were uttered by a man far in advance of the temper of
his age. He was not sufficiently advanced to extend his toleration to
Roman Catholics, and even extending it as far as he did he was
completely out of touch with the majority of his fellow-countrymen; for
the great bulk—both Episcopalians and Presbyterians—were bitterly
hostile to the toleration of even inconsiderable differences of doctrine
and ritual. The ideal after which Cromwell strove, though lower than
that to which we of a more fortunate age have attained, was yet too high
to be reached in his day. Nevertheless, it was a good thing to have the
standard set up; and once the mark which he had established was reached,
it was certain that the spirit of toleration would go much farther. As
soon as Baptists and Congregationalists, no less than Episcopalians and
Presbyterians, were tolerated by the state for the reasons he gave, it
was sure to become impossible to refuse toleration to Catholics and
Unitarians.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account