Movie Night: Oliver Cromwell (Joe Morecraft & Bill Potter)

Dr. Joe Morecraft and battlefield historian Bill Potter evaluate the biblical and historical accuracy of the movie 'Cromwell' (1970) starring Richard Harris and Sir Alec Guinness.

   

John Cotton Answers Accusations that Oliver Cromwell is a Dangerous Usurper

The American Puritan John Cotton, known for writing the theonomic legal code An Abstract of the Laws of New England, sent a letter of brotherly encouragement in 1651 to Oliver Cromwell, the commander-in-chief of the New Model Army. In this letter—written after Cromwell's famous victory over the Scots at Dunbar—Cotton answers accusations that Cromwell was a usurper and destructive of the liberty and safety of the kingdom. 

Cotton notes that when the concessions of the former king Charles I did not allow for peace with the church and the commonwealth, the Commissioners of Scotland and the English Parliament agreed that he should not be restored under such concessions. 

Therefore, the English Parliament's reneging on this was in opposition to a lawful act. And so when the New Model Army purged the Parliament of sympathizers to King Charles I, and put him to trial (which resulted in his beheading), the army showed its faithfulness to its duties by preserving the safety of Christianity and the state. (It must be noted that the New Model Army purged Parliament without Cromwell's knowledge—although Cromwell approved of the purge, and supported Charles I's execution.) This is because when soldiers must choose between the righteous cause that they fight for, and the private ends or lusts of those who send them, they must choose the former. Cotton argues that a similar case can be found in Scripture regarding Joab, who, while exceeding his commission in executing Absalom, did not exceed his fidelity. 

The purge of sympathizers of King Charles
I, enemy of the realm and Christainity,
from Parliament

Cotton then addresses the Solemn League and Covenant, in the context of, we gather, the purging of Parliament and the trying and executing of Charles I, and/or Cromwell's war with Scotland. Some quick background info, aside from Cotton's comments: Cromwell and the army backed the execution of the king, even though the SLC advocates maintaining the "happiness of the King". In addition, on behalf of England Cromwell launched a preemptive war with Scotland, even though the SLC was a mutual covenant between the two countries. (Although before this, and after the SLC's formation, Scotland itself had invaded England; and Cromwell subsequently went on to subdue Scotland because he believed that Scotland was about to invade England again.)

Keeping this in mind, Cotton notes that if one must violate one article of a covenant in order to fulfill another, then it must be a subordinate article instead of a fundamental article. Therefore, according to Cotton, if Cromwell and his army violated one or more articles of the Solemn League and Covenant, they violated subordinate articles in order to fulfill the fundamental articles. While not stated by Cotton, surely the fundamental articles of the SLC include "the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths". 


Excerpt from a Letter from Mr. John Cotton to Lord General Cromwell:

I am not ignorant that you suffer no small dishonor in the tongues of many, not only as a sectary, but as out of your calling, being set on work (as is pretended) by an usurped power, and yourself (with the army) exercising a power destructive, in some cases, to the privileges of the Parliament, and the liberty and safety of the kingdom. But three or four principles there be, upon which it seemeth to me your proceedings have been grounded and carried on, and wherein my judgment (reasonable it is) hath been fully satisfied.—

1. That the concessions of the late King never came up to such a posture as whereon to lay a firm foundation of a safe peace, either to church or commonwealth. 

2. That when the Parliament was full, and assisted with the Commissioners of Scotland (in the treaty at Uxbridge, or Newport, or elsewhere) they agreed together that the King could not be restored to his former state upon such terms. And therefore (unless his concessions afterwards in the Isle of Wight were more safe and satisfactory) if the Parliament of England voted the contrary afterwards, in a nightly consultation, it was not an act of Parliament, but a prevarication of a former just and lawful act. And therefore, when the army discerned, not only their own safeties, but the safety of religion and state, and their cause and victories gained in defence thereof, all of them given away in that prevarication, I know not how they could have approved their faithfulness better to the state and cause, than by purging the Parliament of such corrupt humors, and presenting the king to public trial. 

3. That the army, though they be inferior and subordinate to the state that giveth them commission and pay; yet neither their consciences nor services are mercenary, though they do receive wages for their support in the service; though soldiers may take oaths of fidelity to the state, in undertaking an expedition, yet they, regarding the cause as well as the persons that set them on work, do perform their fidelity, if they attend to the cause for which they fight, rather than to the private ends or lusts of such as send them forth. Joab (the general of David's host) though he went beyond his commission in putting Absalom to death, yet not beyond his fidelity. 

4. That when covenants are plighted, which consist of many articles (some principal and fundamental, others subordinate and accessory) if it so fall out that all the articles cannot be performed without breach of some or other, there may be just cause of repenting the undertaking of such covenants; but yet, if some articles cannot be performed without breach of others, the covenanters must chiefly attend to the performance of the principal articles, though (with grief) they be put to it to violate the subordinate. These things are so clear to my own apprehension, that I am fully satisfied, that you have all this while fought the Lord's battles, and the Lord hath owned you, and honored himself in you, in all your expeditions, which maketh my poor prayers the more serious and faithful and affectionate (as God helpeth) in your behalf.

Read John Cotton's entire letter, as well as Oliver Cromwell's reply


Notes
____________________________________

[1] "Copy of a Letter from Mr. John Cotton to Lord General Cromwell.," in Thomas Hutchinson, A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the History of the Colony of Massachusets-bay (Carlisle, MA: Applewood Books, 2010), 233, 234. We have made minor grammatical corrections to the text.

   

Oliver Cromwell and His Russet-Coated Heroes (Bill Potter)

Oliver Cromwell Movie Night with Joe Morecraft and Bill Potter

Oliver Cromwell represented a climactic point in post-Reformation Western civilization. But few Christian heroes have been as maligned since. In this special Movie Night presentation, Christian historians and experts on the life of Oliver Cromwell, Dr. Joe Morecraft and Bill Potter, offer their review of the film “Cromwell” from 1970 starring Richard Harris and Sir Alec Guinness.

If you'd like to watch this film with a group of friends or family, you can listen to the opening discussion before seeing the movie, then pause the audio, and listen to the afterglow discussion with the attendees at the end.

Audio Run Time: 1 hour, 52 minutes

Includes in the Discussion:

• What the movie gets right and wrong about the history
• What caused the English Civil Wars
• How Cromwell Defeated King Charles I
• The Impact of Cromwell on the Development of American Law
• Cromwell’s Virtues
• The Birth of the New Model Army
• How John Bunyan (the author of Pilgrim’s Progress) was a part of this history
• What we can learn from the mistakes of Oliver Cromwell

Purchase MP3 Download
     
  

Ruler Qualifications during the Cromwellian Protectorate (Theonomy Applied)

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of
England, Scotland, and Ireland
from 1653-1658.

During the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, the Humble Petition and Advice - proposed by Parliament and approved by Cromwell - was adopted on May 25, 1657. 

This was the second and final written constitution to be adopted by England. Included in this constitution are qualifications for becoming a member of Parliament. Below are some excerpts. 

Preface to the Humble Petition and Advice:

To his Highness the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging; the Humble Petition and Advice of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses now assembled in the Parliament of this Commonwealth.

Qualifications for becoming a member of Parliament:

Roman Catholics disqualified:

4. That those who have advised, assisted or abetted the rebellion of Ireland, and those who do or shall profess the Popish religion, be disabled and made incapable for ever to be elected, or to give any vote in the election of any member to sit or serve in Parliament ...

Integrity and fearing God required:  

And that the persons who shall be elected to serve in Parliament be such, and no other than such, as are persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good conversation, and being of the age of twenty-one years, 

Public ministers of the Gospel disqualified (separation of church and state): 

and not such as are disabled by the Act of the seventeenth year of the late King, entitled, 'An Act for disenabling all persons in Holy Orders to exercise any temporal jurisdiction or authority, nor such as are public ministers or public preachers of the Gospel. 

Atheists and blasphemers disqualified:

Nor such as are guilty of any of the offences mentioned in an Act of Parliament bearing date the 9th of August, 1650, entitled, ' An Act against several atheistical, blasphemous, and execrable opinions derogatory to the honour of God, and destructive to human society'; no common scoffer or reviler of religion, or of any person or persons professing thereof; 

Disqualification of those married to Catholics/who teach Catholicism - or allow it to be taught - to children/who allow their children to marry Catholics:

no person that hath married or shall marry a wife of the Popish religion, or hath trained or shall train up his child or children, nor any other child or children under his tuition or government, in the Popish religion, or that shall permit or suffer such child or children to be trained up in the said religion, or that hath given or shall give his consent that his son or daughter shall marry any of that religion; 

Those who deny the Bible to be the Word of God, and other basic Christian doctrines, disqualified: 

no person that shall deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, or the sacraments, prayer, magistracy, and ministry to be the Ordinances of God;

Sabbath-breakers/profane swearers/drunkards disqualified:

no common profaner of the Lord's day, no profane swearer or curser, no drunkard or common haunter of taverns or alehouses.[1]

 

Notes

_____________________________________

[1] The Humble Petition and Advice can be read in its entirety at constitution.org.

photo credit:

Statue of Oliver Cromwell outside the Palace of Westminster
© Elliott Brown / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)

Note about the Theonomy Applied Series: In quoting any particular law, we do not necessarily endorse every aspect of that law as biblical, whether it be the prohibition, sanction, court procedure, etc. Rather, we are merely showing the more or less attempt to apply biblical law in history, whether or not that application was fully biblical. Moreover, in quoting any particular law, we do not necessarily consider those who passed and/or enforced such a law as being fully orthodox in their Christian theology. Professing Christian rulers in history have ranged in their theology from being orthodox (that is, Reformed Protestants) to heretical (for example, Roman Catholics).

Quotable Theonomy: Christian Unity, Compulsion, and the Sword of the State (Oliver Cromwell)

"Presbyterians, Independents, all have here the same spirit of faith and prayer: the same presence and answer; they agree here, have no names of difference: pity it is it should be otherwise anywhere! All that believe have the real unity, which is most glorious; because inward, and spiritual, in the Body [which is the true Church], and to the Head [which is Jesus Christ]. 

"For being united in forms, commonly called Uniformity, every Christian will, for peace-sake, study and do, as far as conscience will permit. And for brethren, in things of the mind we look for no compulsion, but that of light and reason. In other things, God hath put the sword in the Parliament's hands - for the terror of evil-doers, and the praise of them that do well. 

"If any plead exemption from that, - he knows not the Gospel: if any would wring that out of your hands, or steal it from you, under what pretence soever, I hope they shall do it without effect. That God may maintain it in your hands, and direct you in the use thereof, is the prayer of 

'Your humble servant,

"Oliver Cromwell."'"

--Oliver Cromwell, in a letter to William Lenthall, Speaker of the Commons House of Parliament

Cited in Merle D’Aubigne, The Protector: A Vindication (New York: Robert Carter, 1847), 57.

    

Free EBook: The Protector: A Vindication (by J. H. Merle d'Aubigné)

Read below or download here Merle d'Aubigné's excellent defense of Oliver Cromwell, The Protector: A Vindication.

Oliver Cromwell - What About Him Inspires You? (Joe Morecraft)

Lecture: Oliver Cromwell, the Peaceful Warrior (by Joel Saint)

(photo by Tagishsimon)

Joel Saint of the Mid Atlantic Reformation Society recently delivered this lecture on Oliver Cromwell, titled, “Oliver Cromwell, the Peaceful Warrior.”  

hear lecture

Upcoming Lecture: Oliver Cromwell, the Peaceful Warrior

What:
"Oliver Cromwell, the Peaceful Warrior"

When:
May 17, 2011/6:00 Dinner & 7:00 lecture

Where:

Old Country Buffet, in Wyomissing, PA

Can their be such a thing as a Peaceful Warrior?

Only if there can be such a thing as a just war.

Oliver Cromwell (1599-1659) was a peaceful warrior that loved Christ, loved his neighbor, and especially loved anyone who named the name of Christ.

We live in a time when many are convinced that there can be no such thing as a Christian Statesman; one must choose between being a good statesman and a bad Christian, or a bad statesman and a good Christian.

Oliver Cromwell was both. If you know little about this man, I would suggest the times in which we live require your interest, as right about now, a solid Christian Statesman is about as rare as a square wheel.

You will find out at this event that that has not always been the case.

Hosted by the Mid-Atlantic Reformation Society

Oliver Cromwell Lecture Series (by Joe Morecraft)

The following is an excellent lecture series on the life of Oliver Cromwell, one of history's greatest Reformers. We especially recommend this to those who do not know much about Cromwell, as well as those who have only be exposed to anti-Cromwell propaganda. Sit back, enjoy the series, and learn about one of the great epics in the history of the church.          

Oliver Cromwell and Charles I


Early Years and the English Civil War


The Trial of King Charles 1


The Ireland Campaign


The Scotland Campaign


The Dissolving of Parliament


Cromwell and Religious Liberty


Protector of Protestant Europe

In Defense of Oliver Cromwell: Part 3: The Conquest of Ireland

Oliver Cromwell's conquest of Ireland was
in order to quell the Irish Catholic rebellion,
which resulted in the deaths of thousands
of innocent English settlers.

by Steve C. Halbrook

(posts in this series:
part 1, part 2, part 3)

Many hate Oliver Cromwell because of his treatment of the Irish in his conquest of Ireland.  But we must consider the historical context.  In 1641, Irish Catholics, fearing English Puritanism would eradicate Catholicism in Ireland, rebelled.  They deprived English settlers of their cattle, ejected them from their homes, and even killed around three to five thousand outright.  Puritans in England were shocked by the news, which they received in exaggerated form.[1]

For example, a preacher declared at the House of Commons in 1645, "Behold, Scotland comes with her thousands of slain men; England with her ten thousands; Ireland with her millions."[2] How many Protestants were ultimately killed by the Irish, we are unsure; Merle D’Aubigne estimates between 50,000-200,000, when taking several different accounts into consideration.[3] A more contemporary historian holds that the generally agreed upon number of deaths is five thousand.[4] Any of these figures more than justified the use of force to quell the murderous Irish rampage.

(Due to either ignorance or an anti-Cromwell agenda, this rampage is either not mentioned or sugarcoated by some historical accounts. For instance, see this video and this video, as well as this article--none of which mentions the massacre. It's a lot easier to view Cromwell as a bloodthirsty conquerer and to sympathize with the Irish if the Irish atrocities are ignored. If historical accounts ignored Nazi Germany's atrocities, then it would be much easier to sympathize with Nazi Germany as well.) 

In 1649 Cromwell set out to stop the rebellion. One of his first actions was to lay siege to the Irish-controlled city of Drogheda.  He sent the commander, Sir Arthur Aston, the following message:

Having brought the army belonging to the Parliament of England before this place to reduce it to obedience to the end effusion of blood may be prevented I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use.  If this be refused, you will have no cause to blame me.[5]

Cromwell thus made sure to replace the white flag with a red ensign before attacking.  “According to the rules of war, the defenders of a fortress who failed to surrender after a breach had been blown in had no claim to quarter.”[6]

Aston resisted even after Cromwell inflicted two large breaches on the south wall.  Eventually, Cromwell led a successful charge, and ordered the death of all enemy soldiers and armed townspeople.  As Cromwell told the President of the Council of State, “Being thus entered, we refused quarter; having the day before summoned the town.”  He did, however, spare most of the soldiers captured in wall towers the next day.[7]

On why the garrison received no quarter, Cromwell writes:  “Truly I believe this bitterness will save much effusion of blood,”; “It will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future.”  Did it work?  Yes, says the Marquis of Ormonde, in a letter to King Charles II: “It is not to be imagined how great the terror is that these successes and the power of the enemy has struck into these people.”  In Trim and Dundalk, Irish garrisons panicked, fleeing without their guns and stores.  The governor of Ross surrendered, and Wexford’s garrison lost its morale.[8]

War is relentless, and similar acts of calculated terror are to be found throughout modern history:  the siege of Munster in the Thirty Years War, the sack of Leicester by the Royalists, the devastation of the Palatinate by Turenne and of Bavaria by Marlborough, the “obliteration” bombing of British and German towns in the last war, and finally the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[9]  

Cromwell's putting two thousand
Irish to the sword in Drogheda was
not out of cruelty, as he believed
the defenders had much innocent
blood on their hands.

And unlike World War 2's allied bombings of German noncombatants and American bombings of Japanese noncombatants, at Drogheda, only combatants were targeted. As the historian Tom Reilly (a Drogheda native, interestingly), who meticulously researched Cromwell's Ireland campaign, writes about Drogheda: "So far we have no solid proof that any unarmed civilians had died at Cromwell's hands."[10]

Moreover, Cromwell’s putting two thousand Irish to the sword in Drogheda was not out of cruelty.  The Irish soldiers were thought to have “imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood.”[11]  Unfortunately, the reports about the Irish uprising were exaggerated, and it is possible that most of the troops executed were not, contrary to what Cromwell and his troops heard, involved in massacring English settlers.[12]

Although it's important to note that Cromwell was willing to spare the Irish; unfortunately, they stubbornly chose to fight Cromwell's army, even after being given a warning of no quarter. Moreover, Maurice Ashley writes, 

"It has been urged that, in fact, the bulk of the defenders of Drogheda could not be held responsible for the ill-treatment of the English settlers eight years earlier. On the other hand, the decision taken by the Protestant Marquis of Ormonde, on the instructions of King Charles I, to come to terms with the Irish Catholic leaders who had directed the revolt condoned the original rising and invited the Irish nationalists to repeat their guerrilla tactics with all the suffering that flowed from them. The Royalists [Cromwell's political enemies in England, ed.] were ready to use any methods, from the exploitation of Irish or Scottish nationalism to the hiring of assassins to murder republican agents, in order to win back their heritage in England. Honourable men like Aston or Sir Edmund Verney, who forfeited their lives at Drogheda, paid the price for their loyalty to an unscrupulous leadership."[13]    

The terror instilled by the execution of Irish combatants may have in the long run spared the unnecessary deaths of Cromwell's troops and innocent English settlers. On Drogheda, one writes that Cromwell “was probably the only man in the victorious army who imagined what had taken place needed any excuse at all.  When Monck’s storm of Dundee in 1651 was followed by a massacre, he said nothing in his own justification.”[14]

Cromwell’s steward John Maidstone observes, “He [Cromwell] was naturally compassionate towards objects in distress, even to an effeminate measure; though God had made him a heart, wherein was left little room for fear but what was due to Himself … yet he did exceed in tenderness towards sufferers.”[15]  And Erwin J. Urch writes, “By a radical opponent it was said of Cromwell, ‘he will weep, howl, and repent even while he smites you.’”[16]

    

Cromwell's conquest of Wexford, which occurred a month after Drogheda, is another Cromwell controversy. Again, Cromwell sent a summons, this time to the port of Wexford’s governor, Colonel David Sinnott.  He warned Sinnott that unless he surrendered, innocent deaths would be on his head.  Sinnott rejected the summons. But after the attack commenced, he lost his nerve and proposed very liberal surrender terms.  Cromwell refused the liberal terms, but was willing to spare the lives of the officers and soldiers.  Moreover, he would not plunder the town.  But Cromwell’s answer didn’t arrive in time; Captain Stafford, who served Sinnott, betrayed Wexford’s castle to the English Puritan soldiers.  The soldiers would subject the city to plunder and the sword.[17] 

A depiction of the aftermath of the St. Bartholomew's
Day Massacre, where French Catholics murdered
thousands of French Protestants. Similarly, the Irish
uprising, which provoked Cromwell's conquest of
Ireland, saw Irish Catholics murder thousands of
English Protestants. It was the Irish
St. Bartholomew.

Cromwell’s reasoning behind not intervening included Wexford's rejection of the first summons, as well as Wexford's role in the drowning of “seven or eight score poor Protestants,” and the starvation of others.  The situation also differed from Drogheda.  Here, “the Irish had not sought quarter, but determined to sell their lives dearly, and in trying to exact a toll from their foes had perished to the man.”[18]

But like Drogheda, there is no evidence that Cromwell had noncombatants killed. Again, we quote Tom Reilly: "It is still the case that no eyewitness gives details of either an indiscriminate slaughter or the death of even one unarmed defender."[19] This is harmonious with Cromwell's declaration just prior to his Irish campaign:      

"I do hereby warn ... all Officers, Soldiers and others under my command not to do any wrong or violence toward Country People or persons whatsoever, unless they be actually in arms or office with the enemy ... as they shall answer to the contrary at their utmost perils ..."[20]

All this notwithstanding, Cromwell's reputation has long been tainted by propaganda painting him as a merciless butcher. Reilly observes:

"[I]t remains a sad fact that the perception of the battles of Drogheda and Wexford in modern Ireland is riddled with historical inaccuracies. This is the result of the plethora of nineteenth century misconstructions of the events from the pens of bigoted writers and from the subsequently unbalanced Irish educational system of the 20th century."[21] 

"Ireland was no match for Oliver Cromwell, which is mainly why historically inaccurate judgments have been made about him. To put it another way, he is the subject of a colossal grudge held by one nation against its larger neighbor."[22]

Regardless of Cromwell’s actual and perceived faults in Ireland, even the most anti-Cromwell historians admit that Cromwell did more to benefit Ireland than any other statesman.  Following his campaign, Ireland had for the first time in many years greater public order and security; Connaught transformed from a “desert district” to a “fruitful country”; the land teemed with new buildings, plantations, inclosures, and “activity and confidence”; and Ireland revived in “peace, ease, and industry.”[23]  “There is,” writes D’ Aubigne, “no impropriety in applying the rule of Scripture to Cromwell’s conquest of Ireland: the tree is known by its fruit.”[24]

In closing, we must note that Cromwell's wartime conduct must be judged by the Bible, not simply by whether Cromwell or anyone else judged his actions to have been beneficial in the long run.  Although in light of what we have covered, we can safely say that Cromwell was far from a bloodthirsty warmonger bent on genocide--regardless of what his shortcomings may have been in regards to biblical principles.     

Having said that, we do find the actions of Cromwell and his army in Drogheda and Wexford to largely adhere to biblical principles of warfare. Consider Deuteronomy 20 (the principles of which, to our understanding, still applies today, cf. Matthew 5:17-20, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17):

When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

Note the terms of peace, which Cromwell offered at both sieges; the putting of all males to the sword, and how Cromwell and his army, similarly, put combatants to the sword; and the authorization of plunder, which Cromwell's army engaged in at Wexford.

Given such conformity to biblical principles, we see no possible basis to the charge that Cromwell acted unjustly at Drogheda and Wexford, unless it can be established that Cromwell should not have been in Ireland to begin with. But given the massive bloodshed committed by the Irish--and the lingering possibility of more to come--we don't believe Cromwell had any choice in the matter. 

---

     [1] Maurice Ashley, The Greatness of Oliver Cromwell (London: Readers Union Hodder and Stoughton, 1959), 227.  
     [2] Peter Sterry, on November 25, 1645; published as The Spirits Conviction of Sinne (1645), 15. Cited in Robert S. Paul, The Lord Protector: Religion and Politics in the Life of Oliver Cromwell (Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 208.
     [3] Merle D’Aubigne, The Protector: A Vindication (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1983), 102.

     [4] Tom Reilly, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy: The Untold Story of the Cromwellian Invasion of Ireland (Ireland: Brandon, 1999), 20.

     [5] Ashley, 230.
     [6] Ibid.

     [7] Ibid., 230, 231.

     [8] Ibid., 231.

     [9] Ibid.
     [10] Reilly, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy, 85.

     [11] Ashley, 233.  Ashley on Cromwell’s view of the Irish: “Ingrained in his mind was the belief that the Irish were savages who during the sixteen-forties had spilled seas of innocent blood.  To him also they were the servants of Antichrist, the victims of proud and grasping prelates, far removed from the apostolic brethren of primitive times.  ‘Your covenant,’ he told the Catholic clergy, ‘is with death and hell.’  The Irish, he claimed, had ‘barbarously massacred’ the English, who had ‘lived peaceably and honestly’ among them, and in days of peace and prosperity had broken the union and campaigned for men of blood” (pp. 238, 239).

     [12] Ashley, 233.
     [13] Ibid.

     [14] S. R. Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (1901), 138, note 3. Cited in Ashley, 232.
     [15] Thurloe State Papers, I, 766. Cited in Ashley, 232.

     [16] Erwin J. Urch, Scaling the Centuries (Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1939), 482.

     [17] Ashley, 234, 235.

     [18] Ibid., 235.

     [19] Reilly, Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy, 187.
      [20] Cited in Ibid., 51.
     [21] Ibid., 3.
     [22] Ibid., 198.

     [23] D’ Aubigne, The Protector: A Vindication,111.
     [24] Ibid.

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector: Part 3


Hear entire series
  

In Defense of Oliver Cromwell: Part 2: Protector of Christian Europe

"Cromwell went on to publicly warn the world
that he would defend Protestants everywhere.
He also set out to intimidate the Pope and Italy's
petty princes, whom he said were behind the
persecution of the Waldenses."

by Steve C. Halbrook

(posts in this series: part 1, part 2, part 3)

On Cromwell’s defense of Protestantism, D’ Aubigne writes, “Cromwell, during the season of his power, was really the Protector of European, and, in particular, of French Protestantism.”  When Louis XIV ordered soldiers to destroy Nismes and the French Huguenots within it, Cromwell’s intervention saved their lives.  Shortly thereafter, Clarendon, who “had no great love for the Protector,” wrote “nobody can wonder that Cromwell’s memory still remains in those parts and with those people in great veneration.”  (D’ Aubigne himself has Huguenot ancestors, and ponders the possibility that they numbered among those at Nismes.)[1]

Cromwell allied with France in 1655 after France and Spain competed to sign a treaty with him.  The French treaty named Cromwell “Protector of the kingdom of France,” made possible by England’s “respect and fear” under him.[2]  

This treaty was conditional on France’s toleration of the Huguenots.[3]  Spain rejected a treaty because of Cromwell's demands, including a requirement to cease the Inquisition. [4]  

Cromwell desired that persecuted Christians would have the liberty to worship freely and to read the Bible.  He believed it necessary to constrain Spain, since “Rome was the antichristian spiritual power, and Spain the civil power by which she had long been abetted.”[5]  Thus when Cromwell warred with Spain, he warred with Rome.[6] 

International fear of Cromwell protected Protestants.  D’Aubigne writes, “Cromwell appeared like a blazing star, raised up by Providence to exalt this nation to a distinguished pitch of glory, and to strike terror into the rest of Europe.”[7]

Cromwell had in a 1654 letter pronounced his goal “to strive and plan to the best of my ability for the common safety and peace of the Protestants.”  Cromwell would get such an opportunity the next year.  England learned that the Duke of Savoy had viciously slaughtered Protestant Waldenses in Piedmont, located in northern Italy.[8]  The English heard the following: 

Letters of the Duke of Savoy’s cruel persecuting the Protestants of Piedmont, by taking away their Goods and Estates, and putting them in Prison, and carrying away of their Children; using all means with Violence to make them forsake their Religion and the Purity of the Gospel; which when they would not do, the Priests persuaded the Duke to send an Army against them to force them to Conformity, who sent eight thousand Men against these poor quite People and loyal Subjects; the Army fell upon them, slew many of them, with small Loss, and took many Prisoners, whom they used with all Cruelty and then put them to death.  Others of them with their wives and Children, fled unto the Mountains, whilst Soldiers plunder’d their Houses, and then fired them and their Churches.[9]

Upon hearing about the massacre of the Waldenses in
Piedmont, Cromwell wept. He then proceeded to
take aggressive measures against their persecutors. 

As D’ Aubigne describes, the troops torched 22 villages, with many of the elderly burnt to death in their houses. Troops cut men to pieces, impaled women naked, and smashed children’s skulls against rocks. A game of bowls was played with the heads of 150 women. Survivors, according to D’ Aubigne, first looked to God for help, and then hoped the Protector Cromwell would intervened.[10] 

Upon hearing of the massacre, Cromwell wept.  “The sufferings of these poor people,” he said, “lie as near, or rather nearer, to my heart, than if it had concerned the nearest relations I have in the world.”  Cromwell took aggressive measures.  The treaty he planned to ratify with France that very day now became conditional on France’s involvement on the Waldenses’ behalf.  Of his own money, Cromwell sent them two thousand pounds, and ordered letters sent to all European Protestant countries.  A day of fasting and humiliation was appointed by Cromwell, as well as a collection, which accrued an enormous amount.[11]  

Upon hearing about Cromwell's seriousness, fear seized the persecutors.  It was as if they were already overwhelmed  by his English army.[12]  

Fear also gripped the whole continent:  “There was not a potentate in Europe so bold as to dare expose himself to Cromwell’s displeasure by refusing his request.”  Cromwell’s zeal would result in a treaty, giving the Waldenses back their liberty.  From this, Cromwell went on to publicly warn the world that he would defend Protestants everywhere.  He also set out to intimidate the Pope and Italy’s petty princes, whom he said were behind the persecution of the Waldenses. This deed would be remembered, forewarned Cromwell, whom would “lay hold of the first opportunity to send his fleet into the Mediterranean to visit Civita Vecchia and other parts of the ecclesiastical territories, and that the sound of his cannon should be heard in Rome itself.”[13]  

Cromwell thus was an outspoken international defender of Protestants, and conditioned all his treaties on securing their religious liberty.[14]

---

     [1] Merle D’Aubigne, The Protector: A Vindication (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1983), 21.

     [2] Ibid., 209.

     [3] Robert S. Paul, The Lord Protector: Religion and Politics in the Life of Oliver Cromwell (Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 338.

     [4] D’ Aubigne, The Protector, 209.

     [5] Ibid., 210, 211.

     [6] Ibid., 212, 213.

     [7] Ibid., 209. 

     [8] Paul, The Lord Protector, 336.

     [9] As described by the historian Bulstrode Whitelocke, in Paul, The Lord Protector, 336. 

     [10] D’ Aubigne, The Protector, 217.

     [11] Ibid., 218.

     [12] Ibid., 218.

     [13] Ibid., 220.

     [14] Ibid., 221.

Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector: Part 2


Hear entire series