The Cromwellian Establishment

7/28/2019 The Cromwellian Establishment

1/16

The Cromwellian Establishment

Ethyn W. Kirby

Church History, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Jun., 1941), pp. 144-158.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-6407%28194106%2910%3A2%3C144%3ATCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

Church History is currently published by American Society of Church History.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/asch.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgSun Aug 26 00:40:29 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-6407%28194106%2910%3A2%3C144%3ATCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/asch.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/asch.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-6407%28194106%2910%3A2%3C144%3ATCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1


2/16

THE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENTProvidence, Rhode Island

I n 1652 John Milton reminded Cromwell tha t the chiefend fo r which the Civil W a r had been fought-to gain religiousliberty-had not yet been at ta ined :New foes arise,Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains.Help us to save free conscience from the pawOf hireling wolves, whose Gospel is their maw.

Y et, despite the f er vo r of Milton's plea, it was plain to th eclear-sighted Englishm an in the early 1650's th at by f a r thegreater threat to religion was the lack of order and govern-ment in the church. Th us, when Cromwell became Lord Pro -tector in 1653 no problem seemed grav er th an t ha t of restoringorder in the church. H e must furtherm ore do thi s in such away as to keep the support of all th e sects. T h e ship of statemust be carefully steered between the Scylla of intolerance andthe Charybdis of ecclesiastical disorder.Though there was legally a successor to the old prelaticalsystem, it was a ramshackle affair. T h e presbyterian polityhad been introduced, but it existed only where the clergy werepowerful enough to fo rm a classis-and even w he re it existed

it did not include all the ministers in th at are a. T h e Directory,which had displaced the Book of Common Pr ay er , was notuniversally used. Because of the quarr el over wh o had thepower of excommunication, the sacrament of the Eucharistwa s seldom administered. A s fo r baptism, th e scruples of t heCalvinist over who should be baptized, and the refusal of theBaptists to administer the rite to any except godly adults,had meant that even that sacrament was no longer given as amatter of course.The sermon, which earlier in the century the Puritanshad exalted as a means of grace, persisted, but even its sacer-dotal cha racter had been largely lost. F o r when every cobbler


3/16

145HE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENTand every tinker-and, worse still, every woman-felt himselfor herself competent to preach the word of God, what virtuelay in ordination? And, indeed, what virtue did lie in ordina-tion? The moderate clergymen, that is, the Presbyterians, theIndependents, and the Baptists, might carefully recruit theirranks from godly youth, but their orders were not recognizedby Anglicans or by the radical sectaries.

This established church, however, did not purport to in-clude all Englishmen. Thus it differed from the Anglicanestablishment, in which every person of the age to be con-firmed might partake of the Holy Communion. But in thisnew Genevan establishment only the elect were permitted topartake of this rite. This had led to the excommunication ofmany. And besides those who were excommunicated as notgodly, there were those who voluntarily excommunicated them-selves. The Independents ; the Baptists ; the Quakers, whoregarded all rites and all creeds as wrong; the Muggletoniansand the Ranters, the Behmenists and the Seekers, the Libertinesand the Familists, the Fifth Monarchy Men, and the Unitarians,besides the followers of strange new prophets-Sir HenryVane, Dr. Gibbon, Dr. Gell, and Mr. Parker-all these newsects, some containing only a few members and others con-stantly growing in strength, remained outside the establishmentand lifted their voices in protest against presbyterian principles.'

Then, too, there were the Anglicans, or the Prelatists asRichard Baxter called them. How many there were is notclear. Undoubtedly many who were at heart Anglicans con-formed outwardly to the new state church, but sought out anobleman's chaplain nearby when baptism or marriage wasconcerned. In some parishes the Anglican incumbent hadsucceeded in staying on during the ejections of the 1640's;this he had been able to do because of the connivance of hispatron and parishioners. At any rate, the conduct of the

1 Thomas Edwards, Gangraena (London, 1646) is, of course, a highly exaggerat-ed account; see the sermons of Edmund Calamy and Anthony Farringdon forprotests against the rise of the sectaries; and Richard Baxter, ReliquiueBaztehnae (London, 1696), I , 74-79; John Gauden, Ecclesiae AnglicanaeSuspirio (London, 1659), 48, 162-176; and the modern account, based on, awealth of source material, by Robert Barclay, Inner Life of the ReligiozlsSocieties of the Commonwealth (London, 1876), are valuabIe as reflectingdifferent points of view. For the Baptist sect, see L. F. Brown, BaptMe andFifth Monarchy Men (Washington, 1912).


4/16

146 CHURCH HISTORYCavalier Parliament in the 1660's was evidence that a genera-tion hostile to Anglicanism had not grown up.As for the Roman Catholics, they persisted in their secretways, their priests benefitting by the chaotic conditions. B utAnglicans and Roman Catholics were tainted by their devotionto the exiled Stuarts and might be disregarded by the newgovernment. N ot so could the sectaries, who, afte r all, hadbrought Cromwell into power and who must be propitiated ifhe were to stay in power.

T h e question was w hat would Cromwell do with the ch urch ?Because the L ong Parliam ent had been weak, the sectaries hadflourished a t the expense of th e establishment. W it h the crea-tion of a strong executive in 1653, it seemed possible that anequally stro ng chu rch m ight be settled.But how could Cromwell reconcile such a policy with hisoften-repeated declarations of toleration ? His pronounce-ments on this subject du rin g the 1640's ar e, of course, too wellknown t o need a detailed d i sc u ss io n .V s early as 1644 he hadexpressed himself as fav ori ng "a libertie f o r all religions with-out an y exceptions." W he the r he really meant all religions isdoubtful, for he was at that time fighting with pious zeal theAnglicans and Roman Catholics in the king's army, whoseextermination he regarded a s a godly deed. T h e Independentsan d the Baptists in his army, wh o prayed, preached, and foug htwith equal fervo r, came to represent to him tru e piety. I twas of them tha t he though t when in 1647 a s arm y spokesmanhe urged that "every good citizen, and every man that walkspeaceably in a blameless conversation, and is beneficial to theComm onwealth, may have liberty an d encouragement." Bu tat the same time he disavowed "licentious liberty, under pre-tence of obtaining ease for tender consciences."

H o w broad a toleration he really favore d is not clear,but fro m his speeches and letters before 1653 he em erges a s aman far more tolerant than many other deeply religious menof his time. Y et th er e a re imp ortan t qualifications in his viewstha t we must not lose sight of. H e was a sound Calvinist.Paradoxically he was a n Independent, and so favored the gath-ered congregation, and he was an Erast ian in so far as he2 See W. C. Abbott, W riti ng s and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell ( 2 vols., Cam-bridge, 1937 and 1939), and W. K . Jordan, The Development of ReligioudTolerat ion in England, 1640-1660 (Cambridge, 1938), 54-55, 56, 98, et p h m .


5/16

147HE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENTadvocated the d uty of th e state to maintain o rder in the church.The principles of the church which he was to establishwere set for th in the Instru m ent of Government. T he Chris-tian religion, as contained in the B ible, w as t o be "the publicprofession of these Nations," an d provision was to be m ade fo rits maintenance. Bu t no one was to be forced to attend theestablished church. All who "profess [ed] Fa ith in God byIesus Christ" were permitted to worship separately so long asthey did not distu rb the public peace or th e worship of others.Th ere were, also, imp ortant omissions. T hi s liberty was notgiven to "Popery, or Prelacy, nor to such, as under the Pro-fession of Ch rist, hold fo rt h an d p ractice Licentiousness."Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Familists or Libertines werethu s grouped together as non-tolerable. T h e Anglicans, it ha sbeen said in extenuation of Cromwell's thus violating tolerantprinciples, were excluded because of their royalists sympathies.Yet it cannot be overlooked that the Presbyterian clergy hadmade no secret of the ir royalist lea nin gs ; they had protestedagainst the execution of Charles I and had prayed for therig htfu l ruler across the seas. Cromwell evidently had hopesof win ning their supp ort, wh ereas he knew the Anglicans couldnever be reconciled. T h u s a t the very first tolerance was setaside for reasons of state.

This new establishment, as set forth in the Instrument ofGovernment, was thu s a vague, indeed a negative, thing . H owstrong it was to be, how tolerant it was to be, depended uponCromwell.While the Instrument of Government may be regarded inthe main as the work of Lam bert, the religious establishmentreflects the influence of Joh n Ow en, a s well as of Cromw ell.Because of t he close frien ds hip which had existed betweenCromwell an d O wen since 1649 it may n ot be am iss to describethe circumstances under which they met.Owen had begun life as a Pu ritan clergyman, but by 1646he had become a n Independent. I n Janu ary, 1649, whenCromwell first heard him preach; Owen, who was then only

thir ty-three years old and thus younger than the Westminster-4ssembly members, presented clearly and pontifically a religiouspolicy. H e warned his hearers (h e was preaching to Parlia-ment) that they must uphold "the Order of the Gospel, and


6/16

148 CHURCH HISTORYthe adm inistration of the Ordinances of Christ," bu t he ad -vised them that they must do this in such a way as to permitfreedom of worship.H e did, to be su re, limit this toleration. Ro man Catholicsan d blasphemers were excluded, a s well as those wh o disturbed"civil society" or worshippers, or who like vagrants wanderedabout preaching unorthodox beliefs, or who by a "pretenceof religion" drew men to sin. T hu s, he barre d Ro man Cath-olics, Qua kers, and the whole left wing of dissent f ro m tolera-t i ~ n . ~Th is sermon appealed to Cromwell. I t rejected the useof force in the world of the sp irit, bu t a t the same time itrecognized the importance of the m agistra te. W hile advocat-in g tolerance, it protested aga inst disorder. I t is no wonderthat: af te r this sermon Cromwell declared to Ow en, "You ar ethe person I must be acquainted with."4

From this time on the two men were closely associated.T o Owen, indeed, is ascribed the a utho rship of certain pro-posals for church government, drawn up in 1652, which wereto have definite influence upon the Cromwellian establishment.These proposals, it will be recalled, were worked out by a com-mittee composed of members of the Long Parliament, includingCromwell, and Owen an d oth er clergymen. Incidentally, a ta meeting of this committee Cromwell made his memorableremark that he would rather tolerate Mohammedanism thanru n the risk of persecuting "one of God's children." H ewas, of course, quite safe in making this assertion, for i t wasunlikely that he would be called upon to permit a mosquebeing built in Lincoln's Inn Fields and, anyway, he undoubtedlyha d his ow n ideas about who "God's children" were. B u t therem ark probably had the effect of checking the intolerance ofthose who, as Milton feared, yearned to mangle tender con-sciences.At any rate, from this committee came the proposals fora church establishment which were to be adopted, with sometnodifications, in 1654. In many respects the original plan

3 John Owen, Sennons (London, 1721), 269-317. The political aspects of thissermon are also significant, for Owen appeared before the Parliament at atime when the Presbyterian clergymen were drawing up their fiery protestagainst the execution of Charles I.4 5. R. Gardiner, Histo ry of th e Commonwealth and Protectorate (3 vols.,London, 1894-1903), 111, 27 .


7/16

149HE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENTwas more liberal tha n that of 1654. I t called, as did the latterscheme, for two bodies: the ejectors, who were, as their nameimplied, to expel ungodly ministers, and the triers, who wereto adm it qualified ministers. Bo th lay an d clerical memberswere to sit in the tw o groups. Tolerated sects were to meetwithout hindrance in places of worship known to the magis-trates ; but the provision which refused permission to preach toall who denied "those principles of Christian religion, withoutthe acknowledgment whereof the Scriptures plainly affirmth at salvation is not t o be obtained," clearly barre d fro mtoleration Qua kers and Unitarians. Th ere was no provisionexcluding Angl icans or Roman Cathol ics f rom t~lera t ion .~

When in 1654 Cromwell set up the establishment orderedby th e Instrum ent of G overnment, he used this scheme. I nM arch his ordinance created a commission of triers. A s forpatronage, while it remained with the lay patrons or with theProte ctor a nd Council of State , the incumbent must receive theapproval of these triers. I n A ug ust was established th e com-mission of ejectors, to cleanse the chu rch of "malignant"ministers.

A study of the commission of triers reveals a great dealabout Cromwell 's attitude tow ard the church. I n the firstplace, he aimed to create a Puritan national church, composedof the three moderate sects, Presbyterians, Independents, andBaptists. H e regarded these three sects as so nearly akin tha tthey should be able to wo rk togethe r. O ne of his first actsas Protector, indeed, had been to call to him leaders of thesesects to point out to them that they must co-operate.Qisspeeches throughout the 1650's echo this idea: that these sectsby working together could advance the kingdom of God onea rth . I n the second place, Cromwell favo red a church in whichlaymen had power; and so, he placed on the two commissionslaymen as well as clergymen of these sects.This commission of triers also is significant as showingth at the m ore liberal clergymen of the period w ere willing toco-operate with other sectaries. Their exclusiveness was be-ing broken. F or when the Presbyterian admitted the Inde-pendent and the Baptist to sit with him to pass on ministers'

5 Gardiner, History, 11, 28-29. 6 Mary T. Blauvelt, Oliver Cromwell (New Pork, 193'7), 225.


8/16

150 CHURCH HISTORYqualifications, he recognized thei r orde rs, their dogm a, an dthe ir polity a s being ,not heretical but equal to those of Geneva.

The fourteen Independent clergymen who sat on the com-mission of tri er s were its strong est members. Th ree of thefamous five who had fought so hard in the Westminster As-sembly aga inst Presb yteria n tyran ny, were included, whileJohn Owen, Nicholas Lockyer, Hugh Peter, and Peter Sterryrepresented th e liberal gr ou p who were pa rt of Cromwell'shousehold.'T h e Bap tist clergymen on the commission were JohnTombes, Daniel Dyke, and Henry Jessey, who belonged to theCalvinist, o r Partic ular, Baptists. Tombes wa s a noted con-troversialist and was regarded by Baxter as one of the chiefdisseminators of "the infection of Anabaptism." T h e Ba ptistswere strongly represented a mo ng the lay-commissioners.It is the Presbyterian members who best illustrate Crom-well's point of view. T h e men who were omitted a re as sig-

nificant as those named. Edmund Calamy, Matthew New-comen , W illiam Spurstowe-those stal1,vart leaders of the1640's-were probably le ft ou t because of th eir att ac ks ontolerance. Tho mas hlanto n and Stephen Marshall were of amore conciliatory nature; Marshall's sermon, in 1653, in whichhe pleaded for an end to destructive divisions in the church,probably won for him his place on the commission."T he ordinance which created the commission of trierswas vague about the qualifications of the candidate. H e m ust

possess the "grace of God," be given to "holy an d unblame-able conversation," a nd be, able to preach th e Gospel. A s to hisdoctrine noth ing was said. W hile the approval of five trie rswas necessary to admit a clergyman, none could be disapproved7 The list is given in Jordan, Religious Toleration, 157n. Mr. Jordan says thatthere were only ten Independents, but it is clear that Thankful Owen, SamuelSlater, Walter Cradock (of ten classified as a Bapt is t) , Joseph Caryl, WilliamCarter, William Greenhill, and William Strong should be classed with theIndependent members of the commission.8 Manton's and Marshall's views on toleration a re ably sununarized i n Jorda n,Religious Toleration, 321, 323-324, 328-331. For Marshall's views in 1653see The Power of the civil Magis trate in mat ter s of religion . . . (London, 1657)'

19, 26-27. Although Marshall did not join with other Presbyterian minister8in 1649 to protest against the execution of Charles I, Giles Firmin in TheQuestion between the Conformist and the Nonconformist s tat ed (London, 1681)defended Marshall fro m charges that he had favored it. During the 1660's and1670's Manton was to be the leading Presbyterian in the negotiations withAnglicans for the inclusion of Presbyterians in the church.


9/16

151HE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENTunless nine commissioners were present. T he re was no pro-vision for ordination.

I t was evidently the intention of those who fram ed theInstrum ent of Government tha t righteousness of life and adefinite vocation w ere to be the criteria. I n practice, it seems,the meetings of the commissioners and the candidates oftenbecame quibbling disputes, with questions which probed deeplyinto th e candidates7 beliefs. ' An d because th e triers wp reCalvinists, they not unnaturally tended to approve only candi-dates of th at school of dogma. B ax te r declared tha t they weretoo lax about Antinomianism and too severe toward s Arminian-ism; this charge was echoed by the Arminian John Goodwin,who declared that the tr iers were more severe and unjust thanth e bishops ha d been.'' Carlyle, ca rried aw ay by his fanaticalenthusiasm for Cromwell, called the triers "The acknowledgedFlower of Spiritu al England,"" but certainly an y gr ou p whichfailed to include H en ry More, Jeremy Taylo r, or Ed wa rdReynolds does not deserve such high praise. T h e comm ission-ers were undoubtedly able, conscientious men, united by theirha tred of Anglicanism-for only one of them conform ed in1662-and by th eir zeal f o r Calvinism.'"

T h e triers, of course, acted only to approve clergy whowere to hold benefices or lectureships in the established church.Th ey had no auth ority over those already holding livings.Th ese incumbents mu st be approved by the commission ofejectors. T hi s body, it mu st be noted, was chosen by Parlia -ment, not by Cromwell, although the Council later added moreclergymen to the list.13 T h e grou nds f o r ejection werespecifically enumerated and ranged from scandalous life to useof the Book of Common Pra yer, fro m disaffection to thegovernment to the encouraging of may-poles.F ro m th e mem bership of these two commissions it is clearthat Cromwell planned a union of the three moderate sects

9 John Walker, . . . Suffer ings of the Clergy . . . (London, 1714), 175-177.10 Bel. Bmt., I, 72; Daniel Neal, History of the Pt ~r it an s (3 vols., London,1837). 11. 627.11 ~ h o m bdarlYle, OlQer Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (3 vols., ed by C. 8.Lomas, New Pork, 1904), 11, 386.12 Thomas Horton, a Presbyter ian member, was the only conformist in th egroup; several of them died before 1662, and of th at number i t is quitepossible tha t Marshall, a t least, would have returned to Anglicanism.Firth Rait.3 The ordinances crea ting the two commissions are given in . and-- ----Bets and Ordinances of the Interregnum (3 vols., ~:ndon, 1911)~11, 855-858;968-990; see also Cal. S. P. Dom., 1656-1657, p. 65.


10/16

152 CHURCH HISTORYin one state-supported church. W hether he hoped fo r adefinite orga nic union is not clear. A t any rate his intentionwas to unite them in the bonds of Christian charity so thattheir bickerings and strife would end and those outside thesesects would be brought into closer fellowship with them.

T h e vagueness of the terms of the Instrum ent of Govern-ment concerning the establishment would be remedied, it wasintended, by acts of Parliament. Whether Cromwell intendedParliament to formulate a creed for the new national churchis not clear. H i s speeches of September fo ur th an d twelfthwarned the members against undue severity in matters ofconscience, but made no particular recommendations as to theway in which Parliam ent should proceed. On e thi ng was clear,and that was that he had no intention of allowing blasphemyan d "carnal divisions" in the kingdom . Peaceable men wereto be allowed to worship as their consciences dictated. "Visiblemiscarriages,'' by which he evidently meant the atta ck s madeby Quakers and Fifth Monarchy Men upon other sectaries,he declared, should be punished by the magistrate."

Parliament, however, proceeded to formulate a creed forthe new establishment. A committee of clergymen, represent-ing the th ree moderate sects, helped them i n their deliberations :Tho ma s Goodwin, Ow en, Caryl, Simpson, Fairclough , M ar-shall, M anton , Vy nes, Reyno lds, Jessey, an d Dyke-all shadesof thought except the extreme Presbyterian view were repre-sented. "You may wonder at this miscellany," wro te a memberof the House of Commons to Baxter, "but it was thought fittto have men of several1 inte rest s an d judgrnents."15

When the clergymen presented Parliament with a list oftwenty fundamentals of the Christian faith, the Hou se ofCommons failed to approve the new creed. W heth er Crom-well was behind its action is not known; that he had not di-rected them to form ulate a creed is clear. I t may be regardedas evidence tha t Parliame nt a t heart favored some doctrinalbasis for the new establishment that it did ask the ministersto present a statement of "such doctrinal truths as they con-ceive fit to be owned by such Ministers as shall receive the

14 Carlyle, Cromwell's Letters, 11, 343-348.15 Baxter MSS, Dr. Williama Library, Vol. 111, Letters, folio 169. Baxter laterjoined this committee.


11/16

153HE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENTpublic M ain ten an ce ." 'Y he se "doctr inal t ruths7 ' were notaccepted by Parliam ent either. Th ey are , however, of interestas showing the broad-mindedness of the committee which drewthem up. Av oidin g th e Calvinistic doctrines of election an dreprobation, they emphasized the basic truths which could beassented to by all except Un itarian s and the more extremeQuakers.17Parliament, undeterred by its failure to have a creeddra w n up, wa s engaged in defining heresy when Cromwellsuddenly dissolved it on January 22, 1655. Possibly he wasangered at its indecision as to who should determine heresy,possibly he felt that it was encroaching upon his prerogative,possibly he disapproved of its quibbling. A t any rate in afiery speech he explained his dream of a national church andrebuked Parliament because it had failed to help him achieveit. "Such good an d wholesome provisions . . . for the settlingof such matters in things of Religion," he told them, shouldhave been made "as would have upheld and given Countenanceto a godly Ministry," and yet would have given "a just libertyto men of different judgments." H e spoke with approva l ofthe godly sects-the Independents an d "many under th e fo rmof Baptism," an d, by implication, the Pre sby teri an s, bu t hefailed to make clear whether he had intended Parliament toprovide freedom of worship only for them or for all peaceablefolk.Toleration, he adm itted, mu st be limited. "P rof an e per-sons, blasphemers, such a s preach sedition; th e contentiousrevilers, evil speakers"-these should be punished. Y et heinsisted th a t men in "disputable things" should be left to "theirown consciences." T h e Ins trum en t of Governm ent, he claimed,had made due provision for toleration, and Parliament shouldhave proceeded along these lines.'"Now that Parliament had failed (as he felt) to providefo r the government of the new national church, Cromwellproceeded to rule it according to his own ideas, vague as theywere. H e was, of course, aided by the two commissions and,16 Commons Journals, VII, 395.17 Published by Philip Nye, S. Simpson, and others as The Principles of Faith(London. 1654). This credo is so much more liberal than the Savoy Con-fession df the ~nde~endents 1658 that it is possible that Manton, M&rshall,f and Baxter drew it up. 18 Carlyle, Cromzuell's Letters, 11, 416-419.


12/16

154 CHURCH HISTORY

in 1655-1656, by the Major-Generals, but he was the supremeauth ority. Not only had he taken over the righ t of appoint-ment to livings which the king and bishops an d cathedralchapters had formerly disposed of, but if the lay impropriatordid not fill a vacancy within two months, Cromwell could fillit. H is was the final word a s to who should, or should not, beejected. Gro ups desirous of fo rm in g congregations appealedto him for places in which to worship.A gre at many clergy seem to have been ejected du rin gthese yea rs. W hile no creed, no liturgy , no X X X I X Articlesbound men's consciences, a new stand ard had been created.Loyalty to the new government was the first thing demandedof a clergyman. T h e royalist upris ing of 1655 made suspectthose Anglican clergymen who had survived the ejections ofthe 1640's and 1654, and towa rd them the ejectors a nd theM ajor-Generals acted with severity. T h e mere use of theBook of Common Pr ay er w as enough to guarantee th e expul-sion of a clergyman, no ma tter how able he was. Th er e were,of course, exceptions. Petition s to Cromwell an d his Councilseem sometimes to have resulted in an Anglican retaining hisliving or his chaplaincy, bu t these were exceptions. A n d conni-vance is not toleration. Fo r, if Cromwell was vague a t timesabout his newly established church, he was very certain aboutthe old establishment. H e hated bishops-his first speech inParliament had shown that, and ha evidently had no love forth e Book of Common Pra yer. H e failed t o realize tha t refusalto allow the use of the prayer book might be as intolerant as

to insist upon its use.Nevertheless, it is possible th at by 1656 he may hav e sym-pathized with the bishops an d their zeal for uniformity. A tany rate, he had come to realize that the most he could do wasto "preserve the balance between the sects," so that one wouldnot tyrannize over the others. F o r he had seen the difficultyof ma intainin g an establishment in which three sects, supposedlyequal as far as rights were concerned, tried to dominate eachother. It had been intended that all the people (except, ofcourse, for the tolerated groups which were to meet apart)should worship in the parish churches under the pastorate ofan Independent, a Baptist, or a Presbyterian, as the case mightbe. T h is pasto r wa s to be supported by tithes. But this plan,


13/16

155HE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENTsimple as it appeared, gav e rise to a host of problems. Th erewas the question of what was to be done in a parish wherea minority refused to accept the incumbent, but demanded theuse of the chu rch fo r the ir own services. Cromwell and hisCouncil got arou nd th at difficulty by ord ering t ha t th e minoritygroup should use the edifice when the regular incumbent wasnot holding services. B ut how wa s the pasto r of this separatistgroup to be paid? An d who was to maintain the church fabric ?Sometimes, indeed, the separatist group refused to use thechurch building, and met in houses or in a place provided bythe magistrates.''

When the protesting minority, or even the majority, wereAnglicans, as happened in Baxter's parish in Kidderminsterfo r instance," they were made churchless. A s the 1650'swore on the laws became more severe so that the Anglicanswere harried in a fashion which helps to explain the excesseswhich followed th e Re storation . Th ey were fined two shillingssixpence fo r failure to attend church. Now, a Presbyterian,a n Independen t, o r a Baptist might-and did-protest to th eCouncil against such a fine, but the Anglican, if he did so, onlymade more evident his royalist sympathies. H ow rigidly thislaw about church attendance w as enforced cannot be discovered.Probably its enforcement depended upon the temper of themagistrate.

Another problem in this new establishment was what wasto be done with the clergyman who refused to be ejected. Crom-well an d his Council tried to cope with th at by iss uing a procla-mation, on July 3, 1655, which declared that those who refusedto leave should be deprived of th at fifth of the ir income towhich the ejected incumbents were entitled by law and shouldthen be prosecuted as '(dis turb ers of the peace."" Ex am ina -tion of the m inutes of Council meetings, as preserved in theCalendars of Sta te Pape rs fo r these years, shows tha t thegovernm ent did try to be just. Up on appeal, the ejected clergy-man might have his case reviewed. Inten t as Cromwell wasupon ridding the church of intriguing royalists, he evidently

19 Cal. S . P. Dom., 1655, pp. 6 1 , 6 8 ; 1 6 5 5 - 1 6 5 6 , pp. 224, 342 , et pass im. SeeW .A. Shaw, H is to r y of the English Church, 1640-1660 ( 2 v o ls ., N e w P o r k , 1 9 0 0 3 ,11, 132-134, and Mary Coate , Cornwol l in the Grea t Civ il W a r and In terregnum( O x f o r d , 1 9 3 3 ) , 3 2 2 -3 50 .20 Rel . Baz t . , I , 91; s ee a l so Cal. S . P. Dom., 1655-1656, p. 383., 21 Cal . S . P . Dom., 1654-1655, p. 224.


14/16

156 CHURCH HISTORYdid not wish that a clergyman quietly doing his duty shouldbe ejected.

For Cromwell intended his ecclesiastical policy to be oneof "healing an d settling." W e re the emp hasis laid upon onlythe fundamental principles upon which the sectaries agreed,he hoped tha t the reign of th e saints migh t be introduced. Bu tthe difficulty was tha t the saints refused to be saints. W h e n aliberal like Richard Baxter spoke of the "infection of Ana-baptism," it is evident that a comprehensive church could notbe built up. Indeed, Cromwell never realized how widelyseparated were the Independents, the Presbyterians, and theBaptists; for the clergymen who had overlooked their differ-ences and worked together in his commissions represented buta small minority of the ministers of the nation.

H e overlooked, also, the fa ct th at, a fte r all, th e sects hadseparated from the Anglican church not because it was toonarrow , but because it was not narrow enough. Th e Puritan sat the Hampton Court Conference ( just as the Puri tans atthe Savoy Conference were to do in the 1660's) wished theAnglican church made more purely Calvinistic; the Independ-ents had dreamed of a church composed only of the saints; theBaptists regarded infan t baptism as sinful. A nd now thesects clung the more closely to their separatism because it wasthe thing for which they had been fighting.Had Cromwell been more firmly established in power, hemight have come in time to adopt a truly tolerant poilicy, bywhich Anglicans and Quakers and Fifth Monarchy Men, nom atter wha t the ir political beliefs were, might worship as freelya s Baptists or Independents. Bu t he was, after all, an inter-loper. A s th e 1650's wo re on, Cromwell and his Council, andParlia m ent too, became more conservative. I t was not, itmust be pointed out, that Cromwell became more intolerant,but that he realized that tolerance did not work. It must bepointed out, too, that Quakers and Fifth Monarchy Men werepunished not on religious grounds, but on political grounds,just as the repressive measures against the Anglicans were

directed aga inst them as royalists. F o r Cromwell had cometo regard church and state as one. Just a s in the 1640's thevictories of his Ironsides had shown him that religious zealand m ilitary obedience were the same thing, now he regarded


15/16

THE CROMWELLIAN ESTABLISHMENT 157any one who questioned authority in church or in state as un-godly. T he re could be no godliness, he declared in 1657, unlessa man was "honestly and quietly disposed to live within rulesof Government." "I reckon,' ' he went so far as to say, "noGodliness without this circle, but without this spirit let itpretend what it will, it is diabolical, it is devilish, it is fromdiabolical spir i ts , f rom the height of Satan 's wickednes~."~~La ud or M ontag ue had not better voiced the duty of non-resistance. Church a nd state were one, and Cromwell wa smaster of both.His establishment was assailed from all sides. Quakersand Fifth Monarchy Men, of course, used all the opprobriousterm s in the Bible to describe Cromwell and his regime. Bu teven conservative an d liberal Presb yterians attacked it. Ed-mund Calamy, representing the right-wing of the Presbyterianparty, rebuked Cromwell soundly for the religious chaos whichprevailed in 1654. Ministers, citizens, and government officials,he declared, had disregarded religion in order to serve theirown interests." Ric ha rd B ax ter criticized t he newT establish-ment because of its vagueness, and declared that the govern-ment was fomenting divisions in order to keep itself in power.T o check the decline of religion he urge d th at th e ri gh t ofpreaching be limited to those who were officially appointed.24It is no wonder that Cromwell, in an interview following thissermon, seemed ang ry a t B ax te r ; a l though Baxter in hisAzztobiography has given the impression that it was the cath-ol ici ty of his views to which the Protector objected. 'VY1657, Baxter complained that because of the government'slaxness the heresies of Quakers, Papists, and Antinomians hadgrow n unchecked. H e called fo r f irmer di ~c ip lin e. ~"

Even Edward Reynolds, one of the noblest advocates ofchurch unity, saw with dismay the godless condition of hisco unt ry. "In how unsettled an d discomposed a condition theChurch of God is," he lamented; "the holy ordinances of Christby multitudes quite forsaken, the holy truth of Christ by manycorrupted with . . . heresy and b l as ph e~ ny ." ~~ le rgymen22 Carlyle, Gromwell 's Letters , 111, 66. 23 Calamy, The Monster o f S in fu l Se l f -Seek ing Anatomized . . . London, 165 5). 24 Baxter, Humble Advice . . . London, 1655) , 1. 25 Rel . Bas t . , 11, 205. 26 Baxter, Catho l ick Uni ty . . . (London, 16 60) , 37, 65. 27 Edward Reynolds, W o r k s (6 vols. , London, 1 826 ), I V , 447-448.


16/16

158 CHURCH HISTORYblamed the magistrates for the weakness of the church, whileone pointed out th at it was a poor retu rn fo r the mercies whichGod had showered upon the people in the 1640's at Newburyand elsewhere that the magistrates had failed to set up "apure worship and ordinances . . . am ong st us."'* Ev en H u g hPe ter in 1658 rebuked Pa rliam ent f o r the lack of religious zealdisplayed by the magistrates."

Cromwell's ideal of a P ur ita n church wa s thu s neverachieved. I n the first place, it failed because it w as basedupon a mutual forbearance for which the nation was not ready.His establishment failed, in the second place, because it wasfounded upon a Calvinist theology; for the doctrine that onlythe elect constitute the church cannot be reconciled with a na-tional church. Th e Lo ng Parliam ent had imposed a presby-terian government upon a non-Presbyterian nation, while Crom-well's national church, even if it did not maintain this polity,ha d a s its basis the idea of t h e reign of the elect, with tolerancefor some and an intermittent connivance for the ungodly.Y et if CromweIl failed to create a s tro ng national church,he did nevertheless achieve a toleration relatively b road in scope.If the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Quakers, and theF if th M onarchy Men were persecuted, it was on politicalgrou nds , rathe r than religious. Nevertheless the re were im-portant flaws in his policy. T h e expulsion of An glican clergy-men from the livings which they held legally, the ban on theuse of the Book of Comm on Pra ye r, could not be justifiedon the grou nds of Christian ch arity fo r which Cromwell con-

tinually pleaded. The wide toleration which he advocated hadto be sacrificed fo r reasons of state .28 Matthew Barker, Th e Fai th fu l and Wise Servant . . . (London, 1 6 5 7 ) ; WilliamJenkyns, T h e Policy of Princed . . . (London, 1656) ; Thomas Jacombe, T heActive and Publick Spirit . . . (London, 1657). A comparison of the toneof these sermons with those of the 1640's makes it clear that the abolitionof the episcopacy had not brought about th at universal godliness which thebishops' enemies had predicted in the early 1640's. Indeed, it is quitelikely that the chaotic state of the church in the 1640's and 1650's hadquite as much to do with the restoration of the bishops as the popular en-thusiasm for Charles I1 had.29 Thomas Burton, Parliamtentary Diary (4 vols., London, 1828), 11, 346-7.

The Cromwellian Establishment

Documents