I didn't say they did. Do you disagree with the substance of his statements in post 249, or those of Smith, Fiske or Bancroft in the same post on the significance of Calvinism and Cromwell in the history of political liberty? If you don't disagree then you have lost the argument. If you do disagree, why?
Cordially,
I disagree with the thrust of the piece because it is dreadfully incomplete. This is what happens when this type of argument is attempted. Some is purported to stand for all. Note that Macaulay in the bits quoted deals with only a few of the matters at issue.