Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
The 17th century was a time of revolution and marked the end of the Middle Ages and the Reformation era. The shift from a religious worldview to a secular perspective set the stage for the Enlightenment. John Milton, a British Commonwealth man, played a significant role during Cromwell's Protectorate and wrote the epic poem Paradise Lost. There was debate over the execution of King Charles I, with Cromwell and the Puritan Parliament justifying it based on their authority and Charles' tyrannical actions. The conflict between Charles and Parliament was fueled by his commitment to the divine right of kings theory and his ill-advised military endeavors. The execution of Charles I cannot be compared to King David's refusal to kill King Saul, as David lacked the authority that Cromwell and Parliament had. The 17th century has been termed the age of revolution, not only because it hosted the two-phase English revolution, but also because it marked the end of the late Middle Ages and the Reformation era, between 1300 and 1600. Prior to 1600, the prevailing worldview was based on revelation and responsibility. Everybody believed in God, for the most part. By the end of the 1600s, a secular perspective had shifted to human rights based on human reason and Aristotelian logic, thus setting the stage for the 18th century Enlightenment or Age of Reason. The rise at mid-century of what was known as the British Commonwealth men in England laid the humanistic foundation that shaped the modern world. So this calls for a great Bible reset to the Age of Reformation as our only hope of deliverance from the great economic reset that threatens to enslave us in 2024. It's a reset defined by the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 20-24, which is the Mosaic Covenant, or the Book of the Covenant. The Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 are defined by their case law companions in Exodus 20-23. These two are bound together by oath in the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 24. We cannot adopt the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 apart from the case laws of Exodus 21-23. John Milton was one of these British Commonwealth men, spokesman for the Whig Party during Cromwell's Protectorate. Parliament won the battle against Charles I. Men like Milton described features of the new Republican model that emerged from that war, but they tended to ignore the Bible, thus creating a secular view of life in England. For example, Milton's view of freedom of the press did not account adequately for biblical limits. So Milton lived from 1608 to 1674 and served as Secretary for Foreign Tongues under the Protectorate of our Oliver Cromwell. He drafted and translated official letters to defend the Puritan regime. He was a master of prose and poetry. His famous epic poem was Paradise Lost, which came out in 1667 after the failure of the early Puritan Revolution. It sought to justify the ways of God to man and condemn the blasphemy of Satan who declared it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven. Milton went blind about 1652, but he was able to keep up his writing with the aid of a helper. He was occasionally depressed due to his blindness, although for the most part he sweetened the bitter taste of blindness with music and friendship. Such sweet compulsion doth in music lie, he wrote in Arcades. One time the Duke of York, a follower of Charles I, visited him. Milton had condoned Charles' execution. The Duke suggested that his blindness might be the judgment of God for his defense of Charles' death. But Milton responded, If your Highness thinks that misfortunes are indexes of the wrath of heaven, what must you think of your father's tragical end? I have only lost my eyes, he lost his head. As we noted last week, Samuel Rutherford's great biblical treatise on civil government was printed in 1644 to inspire the first phase of the Puritan revolution on a biblical foundation. However, Lex Rex planted seeds of individual sovereignty, sovereignty of the people, which gradually eroded that very foundation. For example, No man can be formally a lawful king without the suffrages of the people, said Milton. Milton's great political prose came out shortly after Lex Rex, between 1640 and 1660. It was inspired by his service to the parliamentary cause under Cromwell. His fame and political clout was greater than even Harrington among the 17th century Whig Commonwealth men, or British Commonwealth men as they were known. This in spite of blindness the last 22 years of his life. This name Whig is apparently derived from the scornful Whigamore, first given to the Presbyterian Covenanters of Scotland, later it was penned on the Conservatives opposing the Stuart Kings in England. As in America, what the parties stand for has been reversed. The Whigs are today known as the Liberals and the Tories or the Crown Party are the Conservatives. So we might ask, were Cromwell, Milton and the Puritan Parliament justified in executing King Charles I? On what basis did Cromwell make the final decision? What is the primary source of authority on which Milton based his conclusions concerning the execution of the king? Cromwell and the Puritan Parliament, as God's ordained agents in the civil sphere, had the right to call Charles to account for his tyrannical actions and execute him when his crimes were of a capital nature after a fair trial. Unfortunately, Cromwell did not rest his final decision on the basis of this subjective grant and exercise of authority, but rather on subjective impressions that he took to be from God. It helps if we understand the nature of the conflict between Charles I and Parliament. In the words of Milton, Charles did, by force of arms, endeavor the oppressing and bereaving of religion and their liberty at home. Things got off to a rocky start when Charles succeeded to the throne in 1625 and immediately married the French Catholic princess Henrietta Maria. He was committed to the divine right of kings theory which promoted continual conflict with Parliament, especially when his ill-advised military forays into France and Spain during the Thirty Years' War ended in disaster. The resultant heavy-handed schemes to raise taxes provoked great bitterness. In 1637, his attempt to impose the Anglican liturgy on Scottish churches led to an unsuccessful invasion of Scotland. In 1641, thousands of English citizens were massacred in an uprising in Ireland. The Parliament refused to provide funds for an army, fearing that it would be turned against them. When Charles attempted to arrest the Parliamentary leaders, the English Revolution erupted and the Charles Army of Cavaliers was finally decisively defeated in 1646. If we look to King David as a guide in this matter, he refused to kill King Saul, saying, ìDestroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lordís anointed and be guiltless?î 1 Samuel 26.9 So what bearing, if any, would this have on the execution of Charles I? David had not yet been ordained to office, nor officially installed to a position of authority in a public ceremony or laying on of hands. Therefore he could not lawfully execute Saul, and refrained from doing so on at least two occasions when God had delivered the king into his hand. Thus this illustration would have no bearing on the execution of Charles I, except to point out the distinction between Davidís lack of authority and the authority vested in Cromwell and the English Parliament. So tomorrow weíre going to look at the biblical side of that in more detail, and until then you can get my biblical commentary on a hundred of the classical authors at kingswayclassicalacademy.com Keys to the Classics, A History of the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization. And please visit our store at boomers-alive.com where 15% of proceeds go to scholarships for low income families.
