# John Cooke: A puritan Hero who deserves to be better known



## davdavis (Nov 2, 2013)

John Cooke 1608-1660, Puritan and 1st Solicitor General of the Commonwealth, John Cooke was the prosecutor of the tyrant Charles I. A tremendous scholar of the Law he was known for his pioneer work in fighting for the right of a defendant to remain silent. He also fought to eliminate imprisonment for debt and believed that all attorneys should provide a portion of their services, Pro bono to provide legal protection for the poor. At the trial of Charles I he demolished the heresy of the divine right of kings and brought Charles to account for having waged war against his own people.
He had a strong and living faith. as a judge in Ireland he once informed the assembled Catholics that the only miracle of Rome was that so many Celibate priests could have so many children. After the restoration of the Stuarts. Tried before the Kangaroo court of Justice Bridgeman he was condemned to die the Barbaric death of being hung, drawn and quartered. Having sealed his testimony with his life he suffered glorious Martyrdom on the 16th of October 1660. In his final letter to his wife, and to his daughter Freelove, in which he stated,

"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom". Specifically to his daughter who was a small child he wrote for her later reading that said " 
"My Dear, Sweet Child:
"So soon as God gives thee any understanding,
know that thou art the child of one whom God
counted worthy to suffer for his sake, and to seal
to the truth of his law and gospel with his blood;
which will be a great honor to thee, in the judge-
ment of all that truly love and fear God.
"Know that thy dear father has gone to Heaven
to thy dear brother, and be sure so to live that by
God's grace thou may'st follow after. I leave thee
to the Lord, who I know will take care of thee and
be thy portion, so thou shalt never want. So I leave
God's blessing with thee, and rest. "Thy dear and loving father,
"John Cooke."
Despite suffering the hardship of losing their husband and father the family survived and his daughter married in America 

An excellent book on Cooke is the "The Tyrannicide Brief" by Geoffrey Robertson

David Davis 
PCA
Montgomery, Al​


----------



## One Little Nail (Nov 2, 2013)

davdavis said:


> He had a strong and living faith. as a judge in Ireland he once informed the assembled Catholics that the only miracle of Rome was that so many Celibate priests could have so many children.​



 Thats a very funny line I'll have to use it myself.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist (Nov 2, 2013)

Thank you David!! What an amazing read.


----------



## MW (Nov 3, 2013)

A Puritan hero? Cooke is presented by historians as a republican -- one who acted, not against the divine right of kings, but against the lawful authority of kings. The lawful authority of kings was established by the civil constitution of the nation. The Act to abolish the monarchy was illegal. The Puritans in general were submissive to, respectful of, and thankful for, their Christian monarchs. They entered into a Solemn League and Covenant to preserve and defend the king's majesty. Many of those who became republicans broke this covenant in order to do so. There was great dissatisfaction with the mock-trial and murder of Charles I. It also was unconstitutional. Many of the Puritans protested against it. As for republicanism, what did it yield? A protector. In the absence of a monarch this is just another kind of monarchy; a worse kind, because it assumes the power of monarchy without a commitment to its dignity and responsibility.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 4, 2013)

davdavis said:


> A tremendous scholar of the Law he was known for his pioneer work in fighting for the right of a defendant to remain silent. He also fought to eliminate imprisonment for debt and believed that all attorneys should provide a portion of their services, Pro bono to provide legal protection for the poor.



What a beautiful example of considering the poor. 

I become more convinced that hero worship, of anyone at all but Christ, past or present, is one of the major forces for evil in the lives of good women and men. We cannot escape sinning in one form or another -- hero worship undermines the reality of that even while paying lip service to it as a doctrine: and understanding that reality, while it can't make us righteous, can make us less blind to unrighteousness. We tend to the same blind spots as our fallible heroes, repeating their sins, and missing the tremendous burden of human history from Adam to the present.


----------



## davdavis (Nov 5, 2013)

Would you consider Waging war against your own subjects and murdering them by the thousands act of lawful authority? Parliament, acting as a lesser magistrate brought Charles to account for his Crimes. Apparently you believe, brother that the monarch is not answerable for any crime committed against his subjects. As Judge Bridgeman said at Cooke's trial "The King can do no wrong and can answer for no wrong". If so how does this differ from the Medieval (not Biblical) divine right? England was certainly not an absolute monarchy before the Norman Conquest and was always subject to check. Frankly wonders in what sense the Stuarts were "Christian Monarchs". James I was a bisexual who despised the Reformed faith. Charles I was a Tyrant who negotiated to have England invaded by Catholic armies to keep him on the throne and who followed his father in the persecution of the Presbyterians, Charles II was a moral degenerate and Crypto Catholic. James II was an open Catholic who murdered his protestant subjects until he was deposed by the grace of God. I believe few would argue that the Protectorate was a step down from the Stuarts. It wasn't perfect. It assumed a general state of sanctification among the people that did not exist.

*"For which reasons, we Declare that several years since he should have been denuded of being King, Ruler, or Magistrate, or having any power, or to be obeyed as such. As also, we under the banner of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Captain of Salvation, do Declare a war with such a Tyrant, & usurper, & all the men of these practices, as Enemies to our Lord Jesus Christ & his Cause & Covenant, And against all such as have any way strengthened him, sided with, or acknowledged him, in his usurpation & Tyranny Civil & Ecclesiastick, yea & against all such as shall any way strengthen, side with, or acknowledge him, or any other, in the like usurpation & tyranny; far more against such, as would betray or deliver up our free Reformed Church into the bondage of Anti Christ, the Pope of Rome. *" Sanquhar declaration" full text at Sanquhar Declaration of 1680
(ps, I know this refers to Charles ii not I principal is the same)
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
David Davis
PCA
Montgomery AL
Dave,s Ravings


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 5, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> It also was unconstitutional.



A considerable number of Puritans (e.g. Hammond, Ussher) also thought that the Westminster Assembly was unconstitutional and refused to participate, since it did not have Charles' royal sanction. Rather, it was convened by the authority of the "lesser" magistrate, Parliament.


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 5, 2013)

Words from an address that King James I delivered to Parliament in 1610 convey the incredibly haughty perception he had of his royal right and station better than any commentary on the matter ever could: 

Kings are justly called gods; for they exercise a manner of resemblance of divine power upon earth. For if you will consider the attributes of God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at His pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be accountable to none. And the like power have kings. They make and unmake their subjects; they have power of raising up or casting down; of life and death; judges over all their subjects and in all cases, yet accountable to none but God. [Kate Aughterson, _The English Renaissance: An Anthology of Sources and Documents_, (London: Routledge, 1998), 121.]​
Charles I voiced similar sentiments.


----------



## jandrusk (Nov 5, 2013)

One Little Nail said:


> davdavis said:
> 
> 
> > He had a strong and living faith. as a judge in Ireland he once informed the assembled Catholics that the only miracle of Rome was that so many Celibate priests could have so many children.​
> ...


 Can't stop laughing.


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2013)

davdavis said:


> Would you consider Waging war against your own subjects and murdering them by the thousands act of lawful authority? Parliament, acting as a lesser magistrate brought Charles to account for his Crimes.



Even were I to concede the facts assumed by your line of questioning, it does not detract from the original point that it is questionable to call a man a "Puritan hero" when he acted contrary to the sentiments of the "Puritans."

The facts are these: the king was never legally called to account for his crimes and the Parliament had been unconstitutionally purged. The king's ministers of state were those responsible for the king's actions. The law required their impeachment.



davdavis said:


> Frankly wonders in what sense the Stuarts were "Christian Monarchs".



George Gillespie: "And this which I say may be seen in the general Confession of Faith, sworn and subscribed by his Majesty’s father, of everlasting memory, anno 1580, and by the several parochines [parishes] in the land, at his Majesty’s strait command; which also was renewed and sworn again, anno 1596, by the General Assembly, by provincial assemblies, by presbyteries and particular parish churches."



davdavis said:


> I believe few would argue that the Protectorate was a step down from the Stuarts.



Its short life testifies otherwise.



davdavis said:


> (ps, I know this refers to Charles ii not I principal is the same)



The principle is "he should have been denuded of being King, Ruler, or Magistrate, or having any power, or to be obeyed as such." Denuded, not murdered.


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > It also was unconstitutional.
> ...



They did not desire to have no Parliament. The Parliament still had constitutional powers. The Parliament did not act outside its powers, but issued "an ordinance" in accord with constitutional law. The king, on the other hand, was later treated contrary to his constitutional powers.


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 5, 2013)

Is there a reason why what William III did was constitutional, while what Cromwell did was not? If so, what is that reason?


----------



## davdavis (Nov 5, 2013)

I would be interested to know how narrowly you define the word Puritan? I've always seen it as an extremely heterogeneous movement. It comprised Low church Anglicans, Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists, fifth monarchy men etc. Presumably by your Definition Hugh Peters and Thomas Harrison were not Puritans because they favored the execution, {and in Peters case preached advocating it}. The short life of the Commonwealth demonstrates little more than the sinful depravity of the people. Did the short life of Edward VI testify that he was wrong?

David Davis
PCA Montgomery Al
Dave,s Ravings
Ps: re your quote


armourbearer said:


> Cooke is presented by historians as a republican


, speaking as an American, "what's wrong with a republic?"


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2013)

davdavis said:


> I would be interested to know how narrowly you define the word Puritan?



One seeking to purify the national church.



davdavis said:


> The short life of the Commonwealth demonstrates little more than the sinful depravity of the people.



Whatever the condition of the people and the judgment to be cast upon them, the contemporary evaluation is the very point of my objection.



davdavis said:


> speaking as an American, "what's wrong with a republic?"



The actions under discussion took place within an English monarchy, not an American republic.


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> Is there a reason why what William III did was constitutional, while what Cromwell did was not? If so, what is that reason?



That is an instructive contrast. Keeping to the facts under discussion, William preserved the monarchy according to the constitution, was established by a legitimate Parliament, and King James was legally deposed.


----------

