In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

82 Continuing the historical narrative of covenant theology’s legacy in Britain, we come now to the“Wars of the Three Kingdoms.”1 Reformed theology and covenants played a prominent political role in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in England and Scotland. The most obvious contribution of Reformed political theology was to provide justification for revolution against King Charles I and the subsequent rise of Cromwell’s Commonwealth. The justification for revolution was in many ways a replay of arguments previously used by Reformed Protestants against Catholic regents in the sixteenth century. Covenant theology also became the basis for a proto-constitutionalist view of government, inspiring two national covenants in Scotland during the sixteenth century (National Covenant in 1638 and Solemn League and Covenant in 1643). These literal expressions of a national corporate covenant, protests against the ecclesiastical dictates of Charles I and his bishops, were prominent and explicit expressions of Reformed political theology. The conflict over these national covenants and their interpretation, together with eschatological differences between Scottish and English reformers, further divided Separatists (who would be called “Independents” or “Congregationalists” in the early seventeenth century) and Presbyterians. Before providing a detailed exploration of the national covenants and the bloody division of Reformed churches in England and Scotland, however , we must first review the important role of Reformed Protestants in the bloody events of seventeenth-century Britain. Included in this overview is the evolution of Reformed political theology in late sixteenth-century England and Scotland as it grew increasingly independent of mentors in Zurich and Geneva. Covenant, Revolution, War, and Eschatology 7 Covenant, Revolution, War, and Eschatology 83 OVERVIEW OF THE BRITISH WARS AND THE ROLE OF REFORMED PROTESTANTISM As Reformed theology advanced in England in the late sixteenth century, the legacies of Zurich and Geneva began to move further apart because of the growing dissent within the English church. The legacy of Geneva was largely one of resistance, while the legacy of Zurich was largely one of accommodation. But both legacies could still lay claim to the soteriology and covenantal logic that was dividing the English church. Protests against the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559 began with matters of worship and ritual. Because these elements were of central importance to corporate life in England, and because the magistrate was supposed to play a key role in their prescription, the resistance of the English dissenters had great political importance. When controversies turned to questions of church discipline (as they had on the continent a few decades earlier) and church government, this prefigured the coming of a great conflagration that would consume not only the church but also the state. To complicate matters further,the Reformations of England and Scotland were progressing at different rates. “Puritan” was originally used as a term of derision against those who wanted to reform or separate from the Church of England. It was later used by Scottish bishops against their opponents in the 1590s.2 But can it accurately be said that there were Scottish “Puritans”?3 By the end of the sixteenth century, Scottish reformers had secured many reforms in worship, church polity, and behavior that English reformers were unsuccessful in winning by that same time. Hence, it is difficult to determine what was left for Scottish “Puritans” to purify in their Reformation, except perhaps the total abolition of episcopacy.4 There were other important differences between the English and Scottish Reformations. While both were influenced by the continental reformers, the Scottish reformation was also rooted in its own humanist traditions, including the work of John Mair.5 Added to this was also the work of John Knox and the other Marian exiles, and the result was something of a “miniature Reformation” of its own in Scotland—particularly in matters of political theory.6 The Swiss reformers had mixed feelings toward the civil consequences of Presbyterianism in England and Scotland. Bullinger’s son-in-law and successor Rudolph Gualter did not join Calvin’s successor Beza in supporting Presbyterianism in England. Gualter and Bullinger believed this to be a divisive movement and destructive of piety. In a letter to Bishop Cox in 1574, Gualter wrote that he suspected the English Presbyterians of “affectation of oligarchy, which may at length degenerate into monarchy, or even open tyranny.”7 Gualter’s support for unity and peace in England’s religious affairs did not dampen his desire for constitutional republicanism advocated by Scotland’s Presbyterians, [18.116.40...

Share