No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Cromwellian Establishment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
In 1652 John Milton reminded Cromwell that the chief end for which the Civil War had been fought—to gain religious liberty—had not yet been attained:
New foes arise,
Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains.
Help us to save free conscience from the paw
Of hireling wolves, whose Gospel is their maw.
Yet, despite the fervor of Milton's plea, it was plain to the clear-sighted Englishman in the early 1650's that by far the greater threat to religion was the lack of order and government in the church. Thus, when Cromwell became Lord Protector in 1653 no problem seemed graver than that of restoring order in the church. He must furthermore do this in such a way as to keep the support of all the sects. The ship of state must be carefully steered between the Scylla of intolerance and the Charybdis of ecclesiastical disorder.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1941
References
1 Edwards, Thomas, Gangraena (London, 1646)Google Scholar is, of course, a highly exaggerated account; see the sermons of Edmund Calamy and Anthony Farringdon for protests against the rise of the sectaries; and Baxter, Richard, Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), I, 74–79Google Scholar; Gauden, John, Ecclesiae Anglicanae Suspiria (London, 1659), 48, 162–176Google Scholar; and the modern account, based on a wealth of source material, by Barclay, Robert, Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth (London, 1876)Google Scholar, are valuable as reflecting different points of view. For the Baptist sect, see Brown, L. F., Baptists and Fifth Monarchy Men (Washington, 1912).Google Scholar
2 See Abbott, W. C., Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell (2 vols., Cambridge, 1937 and 1939)Google Scholar, and Jordan, W. K., The Development of Religious Toleration in England, 1640–1660 (Cambridge, 1938), 54–55, 56, 98Google Scholar, et passim.
3 Owen, John, Sermons (London, 1721), 269–317Google Scholar. The political aspects of this sermon are also significant, for Owen appeared before the Parliament at a time when the Presbyterian clergymen were drawing up their fiery protest against the execution of Charles I.
4 Gardiner, S. R., History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (3 vols., London, 1894–1903), III, 27.Google Scholar
5 Gardiner, , History, II, 28–29.Google Scholar
6 Blauvelt, Mary T., Oliver Cromwell (New York, 1937), 225.Google Scholar
7 The list is given in Jordan, , Religious Toleration, 157nGoogle Scholar. Mr. Jordan says that there were only ten Independents, but it is clear that Thankful Owen, Samuel Slater, Walter Cradock (often classified as a Baptist), Joseph Caryl, William Carter, William Greenhill, and William Strong should be classed with the Independent members of the commission.
8 Manton's and Marshall's views on toleration are ably summarized in Jordan, , Religious Toleration, 321, 323–324, 328–331Google Scholar. For Marshall's views in 1653 see The Power of the cvil Magistrate in matters of religion …(London, 1657), 19, 26–27Google Scholar. Although Marshall did not join with other Presbyterian ministers in 1649 to protest against the execution of Charles I, Firmin, Giles in The Question between, the Conformist and the Nonconformist stated (London, 1681)Google Scholar defended Marshall from charges that he had favored it. During the 1660's and 1670's Manton was to be the leading Presbyterian in the negotiations with Anglicans for the inclusion of Presbyterians in the church.
9 Walker, John, … Sufferings of the Clergy … (London, 1714), 175–177.Google Scholar
10 Rel. Baxt., I, 72Google Scholar; Neal, Daniel, History of the Puritans (3 vols., London, 1837), II, 627.Google Scholar
11 Carlyle, Thomas, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (3 vols., ed by Lomas, C. S., New York, 1904), II, 386.Google Scholar
12 Thomas Horton, a Presbyterian member, was the only conformist in the group; several of them died before 1662, and of that number it is quite possible that Marshall, at least, would have returned to Anglicanism.
13 The ordinances creating the two commissions are given in Firth, and Rait, , Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (3 vols., London, 1911), II, 855–858, 968–990Google Scholar; see also Cal. S. P. Dom., 1656–1657, p. 65.Google Scholar
14 Carlyle, , Cromwell's Letters, II, 343–348.Google Scholar
15 Baxter MSS, Dr. Williams Library, Vol. III, Letters, folio 169. Baxter later joined this committee.
16 Commons Journals, VII, 395.Google Scholar
17 Published by Nye, Philip, Simpson, S., and others as The Principles of Faith (London, 1654)Google Scholar. This credo is so much more liberal than the Savoy Confession of the Independents of 1658 that it is possible that Manton, Marshall, and Baxter drew it up.
18 Carlyle, , Cromwell's Letters, II, 416–419.Google Scholar
19 Cal. S. P. Dom., 1655, pp. 61, 68Google Scholar; 1655–1656, pp. 224, 342, et passim. See Shaw, W. A., History of the English Church, 1640–1660 (2 vols., New York, 1900), II, 132–134Google Scholar, and Coate, Mary, Cornwall in the Great Civil War and Interregnum (Oxford, 1933), 322–350.Google Scholar
20 Rel. Baxt., I, 91Google Scholar; see also Cal. S. P. Dom., 1655–1656, p. 383.Google Scholar
21 Col. S. P. Dom., 1654–1655, p. 224.Google Scholar
22 Carlyle, , Cromwell's Letters, III, 66.Google Scholar
23 Calamy, , The Monster of Sinful Self-Seeking Anatomized … (London, 1655).Google Scholar
24 Baxter, , Humble Advice … (London, 1655), 1.Google Scholar
25 Rel. Baxt., II, 205.Google Scholar
26 Baxter, , Catholick Unity … (London, 1660), 37, 65.Google Scholar
27 Reynolds, Edward, Works (6 vols., London, 1826), IV, 447–448.Google Scholar
28 Barker, Matthew, The Faithful and Wise Servant … (London, 1657)Google Scholar; Jenkyns, William, The Policy of Princes …(London, 1656)Google Scholar; Jacombe, Thomas, The Active and Publick Spirit … (London, 1657)Google Scholar. A comparison of the tone of these sermons with those of the 1640's makes it clear that the abolition of the episcopacy had: not brought about that universal godliness which the bishops' enemies had predicted in the early 1640's. Indeed, it is quite likely that the chaotic state of the church in the 1640's and 1650's had quite as much to do with the restoration of the bishops as the popular enthusiasm for Charles II had.
29 Burton, Thomas, Parliamentary Diary (4 vols., London, 1828), II, 346–7.Google Scholar