First of all, the Scots did not force the Solemn League and Covenant on anyone. The Puritans were very happy to sign it, otherwise they would have fought the Covenanters in the 1640 invasion. Both Covenanters and Parliament were happy with the document, although conflict would later arise over their interpretation of it
To be specific, the Scots interpreted it as a static agreement which stated at the time of its signing the relationship between church and state; the Parliamentarians on the other hand believed that God's providence was shown by the successes and failures of the army, justifying the victors. Obviously, this propaganda related back to the defeat of the Engagers, which was taken by the English as a sign of God's preference of the congregationalist church model over Presbyterianism. Of course, the Kirk did not see things that way and hearkened back to the covenant. I sympathise more with the Parliamentarians on this (since the Solelm League and Covenant was far from clear on the issue), however something which was not considered by either side is that defeats could also be a result of God's providence to punish the elect, rather than justify them - just a little thought of my own to add confusion to a very confusing issue.
As for Lillburne, I sympathise with his cause but the means with which he was promoting it were unacceptable. He took advantage of Parliament's refusal to pay the troops and caused rebellion in the Army while on campaign. To take advantage of the fragile government at the time was just not on, especially given the importance of the wars being fought.
No, it is freedom to practice the Christian religion. When people hear about how Cromwell spoke of 'liberty of conscience', they do not understand what he was referring to. He was pointing to Chapter XX Part II of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."
So, if you are not a Christian, then you cannot even have liberty of consience, since you are in effect a slave to sin. This goes for the pagan elements seen in many branches of Christianity. If you celebrate Christmas, you are wishing Baal happy birthday. If you celebrate Easter, you are acknowledging the pagan godess Ashtar, and it is a grave sin to have the name of any false God on your lips!
The Book of Common Prayer was used to reinforce such un-Christian beliefs, and as such falls without the liberty of conscience Cromwell spoke of. You could be an Arminian and believe in free will, you could support the Episcopalian church polity, but when you start worshipping pagan God's something is going wrong.
Also, don't forget is was Charles' attempt to force the Book of Common Prayer on the Scots that caused the British Wars of Religion in the first place.
LOLWUT? What's that got to do with the stuff about Christmas? Can anyone actually defend this pagan practice?
The landed interests united with some of the superstitious English peasantry and that is why the Republic came to an end. I'm ashamed to say the landed interests in Scotland, even within the Kirk, did the same.
Don't forget the Restoration was much to the disgust of the New Model Army, sadly it was so busy defending the Republic from foreign threats that it could not handle the domestic pressure. The common Scots were absolutedly disgusted with the Kirk for supporting the King, I am still angry about it today! The ideals didn't die with the Restoration though, the Galloway Levellers were still revolting in 1723, good for them!
Bookmarks