Cromwell and his co-belligerents claimed to be aiming for the restoration of English liberties; they did not consider themselves rebels. Yet, in much English historiography, the Puritan Revolution goes down as the “Great Rebellion,” the term “restoration” having been snagged by the Stuarts who returned in 1660. Significantly, as Rosenstock-Huessy points out, the Stuarts in 1660 claimed not only to be restoring monarchy but to be restoring the rights of Englishmen. Lord Clarendon penned a speech for Charles II that appealed to Englishman for their efforts “in restoring the whole nation to its primitive temper and integrity.” The Declaration of Breda, which procalimed Charles II king, spoke of the “Restoration, both of King, Peers and people to their just, ancient and fundamental Rights.”
The Puritans who had begun the effort to “restore” English liberties were denounced as rebels by the Stuart kings who in some ways endorsed precisely the same “restoration” program.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles

Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…

The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…

Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.