# Cromwell the dog?



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 14, 2006)

Split from another thread.It used to be Presbyterians did not like Cromwell. I've been told Dabney, bristling apparently from comparisons of Stonewall Jackson to Cromwell, said not so, Jackson died a Christian gentleman, and Cromwell died like a dog. Anyone ever read that? If it is in the Jackson bio, does anyone have a page reference?​


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2006)

To quote Carlylse,
We owe our liberties to Cromwell. end quote.

And to make it worse, D'Aubigne, a reformed guy, wrote a biography praising Cromwell. Was D'Aubigne praising a dog? If so, was D'Aubigne then stupid?

(EDIT: I had misread the intention of the thread; ignore my inflammatory comments)


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 14, 2006)

Stupid; no. You know better than that. On some things D'Aubigne may not the best. Anyone know where Dabney says this? If he actually said something along these lines?


Draught Horse said:


> To quote Carlylse,
> We owe our liberties to Cromwell. end quote.
> 
> And to make it worse, D'Aubigne, a reformed guy, wrote a biography praising Cromwell. Was D'Aubigne praising a dog? If so, was D'Aubigne then stupid?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2006)

I am sorry. I spoke too hastily. And in truth, D'Aubigne employed an Anabaptist interpretation of Mt. 5 to condemn Cromwell. The only problem is those same standards condmen just war.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 14, 2006)

No problem Jacob. My recollection is D'Aubigne is not the best historian for the "Presbyterian" pov. 


Draught Horse said:


> I am sorry. I spoke too hastily. And in truth, D'Aubigne employed an Anabaptist interpretation of Mt. 5 to condemn Cromwell. The only problem is those same standards condmen just war.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2006)

Bahnsen had a good take on Cromwell in his history of philosophy series:
He defended Cromwell's execution of Charles I (and then Bahnsen added a few other air-tight arguments that Cromwell could have used).

Then Bahnsen gave a stinging critique of Cromwell's interregnum. Took me by surprise.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 14, 2006)

I think that might be why Presbyterians don't always like him. The Presbyterians were the more moderate Parliamentarians, and it seems like Cromwell got into a few tug-of-wars with them, particularly after Civil War Part Deux ended.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2006)

A lot of the Scots wanted to put Charles II (pervert and tyrant) onto the throne. Cromwell put a stop to that with force. (the Scots got their wish after Cromwell's death--and Charles II demanded blood for payment, hence the "killing times.") Here are some good things said about Cromwell:

He sailed right into the harbor, adn though the shore was planted with heavy guns, he burnt nine of the Turkish vessels, and brought the tyrant to reason. But he did not confine himself to this mission: he spread the terror of the English name over all of Italy, even to Rome itself (211).

Cromwell himself reflects on his army,

I raised such men as had the fear of God before them, as made some conscience of what they did; and from that day forward, I must say to you, they were never beaten, and wherever they engaged the enemy, they beat continually (240-241).

D'Aubigne concludes:

Without Cromwell, humanly speaking, liberty would have been lost not only to England, but to Europe (278).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 14, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> Bahnsen had a good take on Cromwell in his history of philosophy series:
> He defended Cromwell's execution of Charles I (and then Bahnsen added a few other air-tight arguments that Cromwell could have used).
> 
> Then Bahnsen gave a stinging critique of Cromwell's interregnum. Took me by surprise.



Jacob -- Can you point me to where Bahnsen wrote about Cromwell?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Jacob -- Can you point me to where Bahnsen wrote about Cromwell?



Funny story on that one. Its actually a lecture. I found some unmarked philosophy cds by Bahnsen from a friend and listened to them. Here is the gist of it:

Charles I is under the law.
If he is under the law, then he can break the law.
He broke the law by conspiring to murder.
Conspiracy to murder is punishable by death.
Therefore, Charles is to be executed.

Bahnsne then pointed out Cromwell's dealings with the presbyterians and he got pretty mean. If I ever find it I will send you the mp3.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 15, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> Funny story on that one. Its actually a lecture. I found some unmarked philosophy cds by Bahnsen from a friend and listened to them. Here is the gist of it:
> 
> Charles I is under the law.
> If he is under the law, then he can break the law.
> ...



Cool -- thanks Jacob!


----------

