Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:23:31.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Congregational Independents and the Cromwellian Constitutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Sarah Gibbard Cook
Sarah Gibbard Cook
Affiliation:
Associate of the department of history in the College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell was a practical experiment in government, but it was an experiment guided by more than practicality alone. For its first three years, it rested heavily on a single ecclesiastical party, the Congregational Independents. This was the party of the preachers John Owen, Philip Nye, Thomas Goodwin, and their fellows and followers. They did not rule alone, but for three years they managed to dominate the governing coalition. They supplied the implicit ideological basis and the explicit personal support for the establishment of the Protectorate, the reign of the major generals, and the refusal of the Protector to accept a crown. Briefly but with lasting effects, England experienced the political consequences of a Congregational Independent regime.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 335 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. An extensive debate was opened by Hexter, J. H., “The Problem of the Presbyterian Independents,” American Historical Review 44 (10, 1938): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Major literature in the debate to 1969 was reviewed by Foster, Stephen, “The Presbyterian Independents Exorcized,” Past and Present 44 (09 1969): 52–75;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Foster's own argument, however, was refuted by a number of reputable historians in “Debate: Presbyterians, Independents and Puritans,” Past and Present 47 (05, 1970): 116–136.Google ScholarUnderdown, David, Pride's Purge (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar and Worden, Blair, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, Eng., 1974)Google Scholar are recent significant contributions.

2. This formulation excludes both Roman Catholics and people who insisted on episcopacy.

3. Shapiro, Barbara J., John Wilkins 1614–1672, An Intellectual Biography (Berkeley, 1969), pp. 6–10, 61–80,Google Scholar offers a useful treatment of one form of latitudinarianism; Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. “Wallis.”

4. A few Sectaries claimed that civil rule was valid only if it was the rule of saints. They could affect the government negatively through harrassment, but there was never any real possibility of their taking positive control.

5. An important study of High Presbyterianism in London is Pearl, Valerie, “London's Counter-Revolution,” in Aylmer, G. E., ed., The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646–1660 (London, 1972), pp. 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. English Congregational churches in the Dutch Netherlands came to an end in the 1630s.

7. Stephen, William, ed., Register of the Consultations of the Ministers of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1930), 2:158;Google Scholar British Museum Lansdowne MS. 823, f. 251; Baxter, Richard, Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), 1:101.Google Scholar

8. Crippen, T. G., “Dr. Watts's Church-Book,” Congregational Historical Society Transactions 1 (1901): 27–28.Google Scholar

9. Owen, John, Works, ed. by Goold, W.H. (1850–1853; reprint ed.London, 1965–1968), 4:119.Google Scholar

10. Owen, , Works, 4:120.Google Scholar

11. Owen, John et al. , Proposals for the furtherance and propagation of the Gospell in this Nation (London, 1653), p.5;Google Scholar the sixteen principles follow on pp. 9–21. Italics in original. More than half the signatories were Independents: see nn. 19, 20 below.

12. Baxter, , Reliquiae, 2:198–199.Google Scholar

13. Owen, John, Correspondence, ed. by Toon, P. (Cambridge, Eng., 1970), pp. 66–68.Google Scholar

14. Owen, , Works, 8:466.Google Scholar

15. Owen, , Works, 8:444–445.Google Scholar

16. Owen, , Works, 8:445.Google Scholar

17. Abbott, Wilbur Cortez, Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell (Cambridge, Mass., 1945), 1:527.Google Scholar

18. Journals of the House of Commons (hereafter cited as C. J.), 7:86.

19. C. J., 7: 258–259. Nine of the signatories had also signed a list of blasphemies in the Racovian Catechism, used by the other committee. These were Nye, Owen, Simpson, W. Strong, J. Drury, W. Bridge, W. Greenhill. A. Byfield, and T. Harrison (not the army officer of the same name): C. J., 7:114. G. Griffith also signed the list of blasphemies. These ten ministers were probably the original petitioners; all but Drury and Byfield were Independents. For the Welsh model, see Firth, C. H. and Rait, R.S., eds., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (London, 1911), 2: 342–348.Google Scholar

20. Owen et al., Proposals, p. 5. Subscribers included the nine who had signed both the earlier ecclesiastical proposal and the blasphemies list (n. 19 above), plus G. Marshall, A. Plumsted, M. Barker, R. Lee, R. Butten, and J. Lloyd. These six had also signed the earlier ecclesiastical proposal, though not the blasphemies list.

21. Milton, John, The Sonnets of John Milton, ed. by Pattison, Mark (New York, 1883), p. 138.Google Scholar

22. Owen, , Works, 8:394–395.Google Scholar

23. In May a disagreement among the officers about religion was reported: Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate (London, 1897), 2:223.Google Scholar

24. Trevor-Roper, Hugh R., “Oliver Cromwell and His Parliaments,” in Pares, R. and Taylor, A. J. P., eds., Essays Presented to Sir Lewis Namier (London, 1956), pp. 19–27.Google Scholar

25. C.J., 7:361–363.

26. Heath, George Dawson III, “Making the Instrument of Government,” Journal of British Studies 6 (05, 1967): 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Firth and Rait, 2:813:822; G. D. Health pp. 15–34.

28. Abbott, 3:455.

29. G. D. Heath, p. 24 n Fleetwood was absent in Ireland in the early months. Besides President H. Lawrence, the other councillors named in the Instrument were P. Skippon, E. Montague, P. Sydney, A. A. Cooper, C. Wolseley, F. Rous, and R. Major.

30. C. J., 7: 363.

31. Firth and Rait, 2:813–822, esp. articles 35–38.

32. Severall Proceedings of State Affaires, no. 231 (02 23-03 2, 1653/1654), 3671;Google ScholarJohnston, Archibald of Wariston, , Diary (Edinburgh, 1919), 2:214.Google Scholar

33. Firth and Rait, 2:855–858, 968–990, 1000–1006.

34. Owen, et al. , The Humble Proposals (London, 1652), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

35. Wariston, 2:246.

36. Stearns, Raymond Phineas, The Strenuous Puritan (Urbana, Ill., 1954), p. 397.Google Scholar

37. Calamy, Edmund, “The Life of Mr. John Howe,” in Works of the Rev. John Howe (New York, 1835), 1: v;Google ScholarWood, Anthony, History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, ed. by Gutch, J. (London, 1796), 2:660–661;Google ScholarHeath, James, A Chronicle of the Late intestine War (London, 1676), p. 359;Google ScholarFienberg, Stanley, “Thomas Goodwin, Puritan Pastor and Independent Divine” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1974), pp. 308–315.Google Scholar

38. Fienberg, pp. 317–318.

39. Baxter, 2: 197–199.

40. C. J., 7:398, 401.

41. Abbott, 3:586.

42. Lambert, Fleetwood, Desborough, Whalley, Goffe, Berry: n. 7 above.

43. The instructions are in Abbott, 3:844–848. In addition to standard histories of the period, see Rannie, David Watson, “Cromwell's Major-Generals,” English Historial Review 10 (1895): 471–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The long instructions for the suppression of vice, designed to preserve social order, were not tied to any particular form of church government and therefore lie outside this argument.

44. Berry, James and Lee, Stephen G., A Cromwellian Major General (Oxford, 1938), pp. 145–146.Google Scholar

45. Berry and Lee, p. 163. Walter Cradock, like Owen, was a noted Independent minister and trier of Welsh background.

46. Abbott, 4:274.

47. Owen, , Works, 8:421.Google Scholar

48. C. J., 7:424, 447.

49. Burton, Thomas, Diary, ed. by Rutt, J. T. (London, 1828), 1:24–80.Google Scholar It should be noted that Independent theory in itself would not necessarily tend to exonerate Nayler. In the end Nayler was not executed but imprisoned and subjected to savage tortures.

50. Letter to Hyde, cited in Firth, C. H., “Cromwell and the Crown,” English Historial Review 17 (07, 1902): 438.Google Scholar

51. Firth, C. H., The Last Years of the Protectorate (London, 1909), 1:129–131;Google ScholarDiet. Nat. Biog., s.v. “Boyle,” “Packe,” “Glynne,” “Whitelocke.”

52. Abbott, 4:417–419.

53. Firth and Rait, 2:1048–1056, esp. articles 10, 11; cf 2:813–822, articles 35–38.

54. Articles 1, 3, 6, 8.

55. Abbott, 4:417.

56. Abbott, 4:423, 435; Berry and Lee, p. 197.

57. Firth, C. H., ed., The Clarke Papers (1901; reprint ed.New York, 1965), 3:92.Google Scholar

58. Ludlow, Edmund, Memoirs (Oxford, 1894), 2:25.Google Scholar

59. Abbott, 1:519.

60. Owen, , Works, 8:467.Google Scholar

61. Jordan, W. K., The Development of Religious Toleration in England (Cambridge, Mass., 1938), 3:254.Google Scholar

62. Jordan, 3:252.