Oliver Cromwell - a critique of the man

The protectorate of Oliver Cromwell was marked by tolerance of other religions and fostered an environment of thinking that was in advance of its time. Instead of being restricted by his religious beliefs, he was liberated by them to co-exist with other mindsets and to broaden his outlook.

Oliver Cromwell was instructed in Puritanism from his youth, commencing with his tutor Dr. Beard. These beliefs of Low Church anti-ritualism were reinforced during his time as a student at Cambridge University. Whilst holding these doctrines, he was not above allowing others to express their opinions.

It was clear that Oliver Cromwell wanted his parliamentarians to exercise the same attitude as he had when he said (on 4^th July 1654) that he hoped that the members of the ‘Barebones’ Parliament would ‘respect unto all, though of different judgements.’

It was noticeable that there were no executions during the period of the Protectorate, either for religious or political reasons, as was evidenced in the times of the Tudors and, indeed, the earlier Stuart monarchs. The only reason that executions took place in England after the beheading of Charles I was a punishment for insurrection. Oliver Cromwell was eager to avoid the distrust and intolerance that had been the hallmark of previous times. He was reluctant even to imprison or punish in other ways, unless there were other causes.

He was an advocate for reducing the numbers of those who suffered because of beliefs that were different from himself.

One example of this policy of social tolerance was Sir Robert Sturley Bt. who built Staunton Harold church in Leicestershire in 1653. It was one of the few churches erected during this time, in defiance with Cromwell’s Puritanism and in the builder’s identification with High Anglicanism. In response to Sir Robert’s obvious show of opulence rather than for his religious beliefs, Cromwell demanded money to finance a regiment and this demand was not complied with. Sir Robert was imprisoned in the Tower of London, not for doctrinal differences but for flouting his riches.

Another example was the Quaker and Leveller, John Lilburne. The Protector imprisoned Lilburne, as he agitated ceaselessly those around him to revolt against the government. The experience of imprisonment and huge fines did not deter him so, eventually, his fate was to be exiled to the continent. Cromwell showed concern for him constantly in that he was allowed out of jail to visit his wife and daughter, when it was believed that they were close to death. Lilburne was permitted to rent a house, after his return from exile, even though he was still a prisoner. After his death at the age of forty-three in August 1657, Cromwell granted an allowance to his widow Elizabeth and their five children at the rate of 40 shillings a week.

A third example was that of John Biddle, a schoolmaster from Gloucester, who developed and published his doubts about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He was imprisoned continually during the Protectorate, being confined to the Isles of Scilly in 1655 – 8.

It was a common principle in religious matters, as in political, that where Cromwell intervened, he made sure that the women did not suffer for he regarded them as innocent victims of their husbands’ or fathers’ deeds.

One example was that, in June 1654, Cromwell signed an order allowing Lady Tyringham to recover all the land in Ireland that she had lost to the Parliamentarians in 1642.

Another example of care for the women concerned Lady Osmonde, who was the heiress of the Irish Desmond estate and wife to the arch-royalist leader, the Marquis of Osmonde. She was in poverty and was in exile. Cromwell commanded that the Desmond inheritance should be restored to her as a lady should not ‘want bread’ for the misfortune of having married ‘a delinquent lord.’

As there was religious equality in beliefs amongst people in the British Isles, it is true that there was no religious antagonism in the foreign policy during the time of the Protectorate, It is correct to assert that the war with the Protestant Dutch nation was an embarrassment, but they were a rival trading nation. The cause for concern was removed with the peace with the Dutch in 1654 as means to improving trading relations and to attract Dutch capital to England where liquid assets were remarkably short.

It was Cromwell’s policy to cultivate good relationships with his Protestant European allies. To meet this objective, John Dury was appointed to be England’s diplomatic representative to Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

It was not an animosity towards the Roman Catholic religion that drove the Commonwealth to be in conflict with Spain, but it was the imperialistic ambitions of two nations that meant inevitable collision. It was the English aspirations that led to the occupation and settling of a stable base in the West Indies. This action was very much opposite to the Elizabethan sea dogs that had pillaged the Spanish galleons in the previous century and the establishment of an imperialistic policy in the mid-seventeenth century would lead to the future British Empire.

It was the same ambition that lead to conflicts with France, although on a very much minor scale. The English captured Nova Scotia (where Charles I surrendered an earlier settlement in 1629), which would have led to the second colonisation of the Canadian territories had not Charles II given them back to France in 1668.

In context, it must be noted that, in 1656, England concluded a commercial treaty with Portugal, another Roman Catholic nation. This treaty commenced the modern period of diplomatic and commercial contacts with that Iberian country.

Within the context of home policy, Oliver Cromwell was prepared to accept that other people had different opinions than that held by himself. In September 1654, he reconfirmed his belief that he wanted ‘a free parliament…is that which I have desired all my life. I shall desire to keep it so above my life.’ It is to be noted that, under the constitution of 1657, the Lord Protector was still subject to the council with fifteen members.

There was more religious toleration in the time of the Protectorate than in any other seventeenth century governments, either before or after this period. It must be noted that the Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists were free to worship God and operate their own particular form of church government under Cromwell’s rule, however much he disagreed with them on points of doctrine. In September 1656, Oliver Cromwell exhorted people to ‘encourage them…to make use of the liberty given them to enjoy their own consciences.’ He had no desire to create a national church with the convergence of all denominations, but he pursued a policy where no religious grouping would impose their beliefs onto other Christians.

He was aware of the religious freedom that was experienced by the inhabitants of the colonies in the New World, as the declaration of his Lord Protectorship extended to them as well as the countries in the British Isles. An example was Roger Williams, the governor of Rhode Island, who had a tolerant approach to Quakers and Jews so that they were permitted to settle in the colony. John Milton, who knew the governor well, admired him a a champion of religious liberty. This action is in contrast with the position after 1660, when all these groups were persecuted for their views on worship and church structure with the well-known imprisonment of John Bunyan being an example.

There was a liberal application of immigration, especially in the light of religious persecution on the continent. There were colonies of Protestant immigrants in London and Norwich, who were permitted to trade freely by the Protector. Cromwell granted this permission, despite the inevitable opposition. There were 150 granted letters of naturalisation so that any objections would be overcome.

The Roman Catholics had, on the whole, been sympathetic to the Royalist cause. This situation did not prevent them from effective toleration by 1656. The situation was to be contrasted with the 1660 Restoration, when the Roman Catholics (together with the dissenters) were to be subject to severe legislation restricting their religious practices. It was ironic as Charles II, on his deathbed, was reputed to state that he was a Catholic.

The Covenanters had forced Charles I to accept Presbyterianism in Scotland during the civil war period. They were Calvinistic in doctrine, in contrast to the Arminianism of Laud and the high church that Charles I supported. The system of ecclesiastical government that they employed involved a hierarchy of courts that governed them. The ultimate authority of the denomination was the Bible and preaching from it was the central part of their church service. The Lord Protector forced them to change their uncompromising stance, albeit with the Scottish being unwilling, so that secularism was tolerated.

Another denomination that was prevalent at this time were the Baptists. They had many men in high positions in the government, such as Henry Lawrence (Lord President of the Council of State 1654 – 1659) and Samuel Moyer (one of the three judges of probate from 1659), as well as many officers in the army. There was a division in the denomination at this time between the number of Baptists, who had received benefices or other state paid positions in the established church, and those who wanted to remain separate from it as believing that each individual congregation was directly accountable to God, It is interesting to note that, in 1654, there were six Baptists among the thirty-eight central Triers and there were numerous others on local boards.

The Baptists, on the whole, supported Cromwell. In 1654, the Baptist churches in Hexham, Derby and Horton (near Bradford, Yorkshire) sent an address on confidence in the Lord Protector, stating ‘We profess our subjection to your Highness and most honourable Council, as the happy powers ordained by God.’ In the same year, Oliver Cromwell received a similar address ‘of the baptised churches consisting of officers, soldiers and others, walking in gospel order at Leith, Edinburgh and St. Johnstone.’

It was the likes of Henry Lawrence who supported Cromwell’s political and religious policy of toleration, when Lawrence stated, ‘Why dost thou find fault amongst so long as you and others have liberty to preach freely?’ There was diversity even among the Baptists with the Seventh Day Baptists (whose few congregations met on Saturdays as they stated that the fourth commandment was non-negotiable), the Arminian General and the Calvinistic Particular.

There were departures from the denominations as a few Baptists became Levellers and more became Quakers. There were no losses to the Diggers, who claimed that it was the Christian duty to put common land and crown land under the spade and plough so that all men could benefit.

The followers of the new sect of the Quakers or Society of Friends (originating during the religious upheaval of the 1650s) believed in proscribed formulas of worship, even to the extent that their meetings were silent as they waited for the Holy Ghost to move them. There were no sacraments, such as baptism or Holy Communion. They addressed everyone as ‘thou.’ They rejected hierarchy and organisation (refusing to pay tithes), even spurning contemporary social graces. One of their tenets was pacifism and their leader, George Fox, had urged Cromwell not to fight the king. However, in 1654, relations between the two men had become cordial so that Cromwell had obtained a release from prison for Fox and they met socially. At Launceston, the clerk of the Assize was forbidden to pursue the Quakers and imprison them until further orders. This policy was despite the behaviour of John Lilburne and the extreme James Naylor, the latter being imprisoned and not executed for his blasphemous entry into Bristol imitating Christ. The Quakers were one of the few movements that encouraged the active participation by women, such as Margaret Fell and Elizabeth Hooton, and the equality of the sexes. George Fox wrote on one occasion, ‘Encourage all the women that are convinced, and minds virtue, and loves the truth, and walks in it, that they may come up into God’s service, that they too be serviceable in their generation, and in the Creation.’ The extravagant and extreme practices that were evident in the early days were soon eliminated, and the movement reached respectability with sobriety of thought and action, coupled with peaceable to all members of society.

The Fifth Monarchists were founded in 1645 with two centres – in London (Christopher Feake and John Simpson) and Wales (Vavasor Powell and Morgan Lloyd). They were preoccupied with the thought that the millennium was near when Christ would return to this world and establish the fifth universal monarchy. The name derived from the four beasts (mentioned in the book of Daniel chapter 7) as being synonymous with the four great empires of the ancient world. The fourth empire, that of the Romans, was overtaken by the papal rulers, who were to be identified with the Antichrist or the Beast in the Book of Revelation chapters 11 to 20. The fifth monarchy’s authority was to be exercised by the saints on the behalf of Christ for one thousand years (the millennium) until the Son of Man returned in person to initiate the Last Judgement. Many orthodox Puritans held these pre-millennial views, but the Fifth Monarchists were more extreme in their beliefs. They were specific in relating scriptural prophesies literally to the times they were living (especially the removal of Charles I from the throne and his execution); pinpointing the precise date for the destruction of the Antichrist, and in the confident knowledge that they were the saints who were to administer Christ’s rule. Their prime objective was to remove all remnants of the ‘carnal’ government and to establish the promised kingdom by their own efforts, although there were variances in their views as to the precise form. One of them accused the Protector to his face that he ‘tooke the Crowne off the head of Christ, and put in on his owne.’ One of the leaders of the movement, Colonel Thomas Harrison (who later became a major-general) forfeited his commission rather than act under a Protectorate he did not agree with. Several other officers followed his example. The movement formed few churches, although association with them did not preclude membership with any other Christian church. Although Cromwell disagreed with the theology of the Fifth Monarchists, the most severe punishment he inflicted on them was imprisonment. However, after the Restoration, in 1661, seventeen followers were arrested and executed.

The Fifth Monarchy adherents, within the ‘Barebones’ Parliament, were not in league with the Levellers. The latter group had principles and interests that were secular, and their leaders were mainly deists or atheists.

Another sect that arose in this period were the Muggletonians, founded by a tailor, Ludovic Muggleton (1609 – 98). His cousin John Reeve (1608 – 58) (also a tailor) and he proclaimed that they were the last two witnesses of God to appear before the end of the world (as described in the Book of Revelation chapter 11 verse 3). Reeve was the messenger and Muggleton was the mouthpiece. This tenet, together with the statement that Elijah was responsible for governing heaven during the incarnation, led to Muggleton’s conviction for blasphemy in 1653-4.

The quasi-religious movement of the Ranters also rose out of the religious melee of the seventeenth century. They were not orthodox, as they believed that God was present in all His creation, especially man. Those people who attuned themselves to the godhead were then sinless, as all God’s work is good. The Ranter’s advocation of dancing, drinking, smoking, swearing and sharing of sexual partners outraged the orthodox. The lack of organisation and prosecution by magistrates lead to the Ranters’ brevity of existence.

With the toleration of denominations and sects, undoubtedly, one of the most notorious actions of this period was the readmittance of Jews into England. Edward I, in 1290, had previously expelled them with the support of the general populace. However, there was a heightened interest in the Bible by Christians at this time, which resulted in a new appreciation of the Jewish nation. Some people in the Commonwealth saw he return of the Jews as part of the fulfilment of the prophesies about the millennium (when Jesus was to return to the world and so mark the end of time). Others were more evangelistic in their viewpoint for they wanted to welcome the Jews and then convert them to Christianity.

There was opposition to the repatriation of the Jews from some quarters, but the English merchants wanted expert international traders and lawyers so they supported the removal of the legal bar.

The reality was that there had been a secret trickling of the Jews into England as a consequence of their expulsion from Spain and Portugal at the end of the fifteenth century. There were private colonies in London, Dover and York. The Jews themselves regarded it as being part of the Diaspora, where they were to be dispersed to the ends of the earth.

Cromwell himself was practical in his toleration of the Jews as he regarded them highly as being skilled purveyors of foreign intelligence. His stance was that of expediency and pragmatism. On 4^th December 1655, he addressed this situation, but left a grey area as the Jews were allowed to resettle in England although there was no legal backing for this action.

Matters progressed rapidly so that, by 1657, Samuel Dormido was the first Jewish member of the Stock Exchange so setting a precedent for future generations for his race  (e.g. Benjamin Disraeli) to partake in civic life.

Cromwell’s own religious persuasion was that of being a nonconformist and a separatist. However, he wanted to improve the Church of England and the lot of its ministers. The lands that belonged to the bishops, the deans and chapters of the cathedral were sold in order to supplement the incomes of the clergy in poorer paid livings. The ‘Barebones’ Parliament advocated the replacement of tithes as a means of securing a salaried and educated church ministry. Towards this end, there were two ordinances in 1654. The first, in March, established a central commission of thirty-eight men to assess applicants for church livings to ensure (as Cromwell stated) ‘men of known integrity and piety, orthodox men and faithful.’

The second ordinance, in August, enabled commissioners in each county to remove ministers that were guilty of wrong behaviour or ignorance.

Under the 1657 ‘Humble Petition and Advice’ (the second written constitution of the this time), it was moved that the established church was to have a confession of faith, which was common in other religious groups, such as the 1647 Westminster Confession for the Presbyterians.

Cromwell was, to a certain extent, conservative in his opinions. He was disappointed by the fanatics in the ‘Barebones’ or ‘Nominated’ Parliament of 1653 as they wanted the abolition of the universities and the tithes (the latter Cromwell had been responsible for collecting in Ely earlier in his life), seeing salaried and learned ministry within the Church as being unnecessary. He was a pragmatist, who saw the benefit to the status quo when everything was being changed in the life of the nation. He wanted the standards of education, morals and the Church to be improved, not to be demolished. This stance was emphasised by the ‘Instrument of Government’ (December 1653), which stated that the national church was to be maintained whilst there was to be freedom of worship for the dissenters.

There was a movement towards the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in this period. Bishops were not accorded seats in the Upper House. The ‘Barebones’ Parliament instituted the machinery to replace the Church courts for the registration of births, deaths and marriages, and for executing probate of wills. The mindset was very much ahead of its time and something that is taken for granted in the modern era. In the time of the Protectorate, there was the legislation of civil marriages solemnised by justices of the peace and their registration by elected parish registrars.

The practicality of the religious experience was demonstrated by people of this period. There was seen to be importance in the word ‘commonwealth’ as it emphasised the duties and responsibilities of every citizen in the nation. The ‘Barebones’ Parliament passed acts for the relief of debtors and poor prisoners, and for the regulating the conditions that those with mental conditions were kept in.

  The religious argument for the importance of universal education predated the ideas that were progressed during the Victorian period. William Petty called for ‘literary workhouses’ for poor children. More radically, Samuel Hartlib and John Dury proposed that all children were to attend common schools (where reading, writing, mathematics, geography, history, reasoning and law were to be taught) before proceeding to mechanical schools (where vocational training was undertaken). The latter institutions set a precedent for modern city technology colleges introduced in the twentieth century, which has had Christian involvement in several locations.

With regard to further education, William Dell suggested state maintained universities at various cities such as London, York, Bristol, Exeter and Durham. (Cromwell had already supported the educational establishment at Durham in their bid to change their status from college to university, which was only effected after the death of the Lord Protector.) This idea of Dell was ahead of its time before the nonconformist University of London in the Victorian era and the expansion of the university system in the twentieth century.

There was a determination by people at that time for excellence in the educational establishment (the Church). Visitors for the schools and the universities were scrutinised. The rules for the ejection of scandalous schoolmasters were continuously applied, such as participating in adultery and visiting alehouses.

It could be argued that such an outworking of Christian thought would not be observed again until the time of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury in the nineteenth century. Cromwell was not obsessed with excessive legislation but he wanted the existing laws to be applied effectively and fairly. In March 1656, he stated, ‘We had indeed many and good laws, yet we have lived rather under the name and notion of a law than under the thing, so that ‘tis resolved to regulate the same (God assisting), oppose who will.’ His sentiments were demonstrated by the insistence by the major-generals that local government was effective, that the justices of the peace and deputy-lieutenants undertook their tasks without partiality. They made sure that the law was applied to all classes (e.g. drunkenness, blasphemy and Sabbath breaking) as the justices of the peace were inclined to be lenient to the upper classes. This sector of society was made aware of its moral responsibility for the behaviour of the servants.

There was an attempt to customise the way in which people lived with the ‘reformation of manners.’ In addition to imposing new taxation, raising horse militias and restoring order after Penruddock’s Rising in March 1655, the eleven major-generals closed theatres and took other Puritan measures against what seemed to be unseemly behaviour. These actions proved to be extremely unpopular and, with the absence of any other plots to overthrow the government, the experiment to set regulations regarding every aspect of people’s lives was ended. The attempt to regularise behaviour was not as brutal or as effective as commentators have maintained, but it stayed in the national psyche as a severe warning as to military intervention an behaviour control (by religion or any other belief system) by central government.

There were notable people who objected, at the time, to the intervention by central government into the lives of individuals. Viscount Saye and Sele, who was a dominant force during the civil war, had become politically inactive after 1649 and devoted his life to religion. In 1654, he published the work, ‘Vindicae veritatis,’ which called for the magistrate not to regulate a man’s beliefs beyond what was necessary.

There was a willingness to bring enlightened thinking to the seventeenth century. When Scotland was occupied by English troops under Cromwell’s command, there was a virtual cessation of witch persecution in that country. In England itself, there was the total ending of burning of witches during the time of the Lord Protector.

There was a sense of the equality of men in the political arena. The ‘Instrument of Government’ advocated a major reorganisation of the parliamentary constituencies so that there would be an increased number of Members of Parliament elected by counties, as opposed to boroughs. The proposal was morally justified as it reduced the opportunities to influence corruptly the outcome of the elections. The issue of electoral reform, together with the matter of ‘rotten boroughs,’ would not be addressed again for another two centuries with the passing of the 1832 Reform Act.

There was to be moral propriety in all aspects of political life. Aylmer asserts that the English elections of 1654 was probably as free as any in that century, although it is correct that some categories of royalists were denied voting rights and the opportunity to stand as candidates. The new Parliament was comprised of various sectors that were not necessarily sympathetic with Cromwell’s views. There were numerous Presbyterians or moderate parliamentarians who voiced their opposition to the Commonwealth, many neutrals, republicans, and even some royalists who were too young to have fought in the civil war and so were not formally disqualified from standing as candidates.

There was an effort to eliminate government corruption in civil servant appointments, as the men were to be salaried instead of relying on the commission as a percentage of the turnover. There was the emphasis on qualifications, although the grounds of moral and religious suitability, and political affiliation were also considered. There were fewer appointments made on social connections or accidents of birth. The tenures of these positions were reliant on the good conduct of the officers of state and, as an incentive, were not granted for life. The corruptive nature of the positions being bought and sold were removed.

In addition to seeking the moral high ground in the political arena, Cromwell had a sense of the creativity of men as echoing their Creator that determined the cultural progress during this era. Although religious music with organs was abhorred, there was a proliferation of secular music. In August 1657, the first full-length English opera, ‘The Siege of Rhodes,’ was performed. The fashion for solo songs, by such composers as Henry Lawes, was apparent. Indeed, in 1657, musicians petitioned Cromwell for a college of musicians to be instituted.

The literary arts were also encouraged, with those poets that were adherents to the regime (e.g. John Milton, John Dryden, the metaphysicist Andrew Marvell and Robert Boyle) and those less inclined (e.g. Jeremy Taylor, Thomas Fuller and Isaak Walton) being published. In prose, there was irony written by William Walwyn, and sarcasm and invective composed by Richard Overton.

The visual arts were evident with the likes of Robert Walker, who painted most of the Commonwealth notables.

It is true that there was little new architecture in this period (the exception to this fact was the alterations made in the house at Wilton in Wiltshire). The reason was the aversion to elaborate and wasteful schemes, and the lack of financial provision due to the expenditure of the civil war. Most of the damages to ecclesiastical buildings are not attributable to Oliver Cromwell, but to the actions of Thomas Cromwell during the Reformation and the extreme zealots during the Commonwealth era.

In the area of science, the Lord Protector’s mind was expanded by his religious convictions and not restricted by it. About the year 1655, John Ray classified plants and invented species, a work that is still continuing to this present age.

In 1657, Christopher Wren was appointed Professor of Astronomy at Gresham College in London. In 1658, he wrote a draft paper about the curious appearance of the planet Saturn.

At this time, the ‘Invisible College’ emerged, of which Wren was a member. This affiliation of thinkers was to develop into the Royal Society after the Restoration. It could be justifiably argued that that the progresses made in the reign of Charles II and beyond were built upon the foundation of the tolerance and inquisitiveness of the Puritan protectorate.

During this time, Nicholas Culpepper applied his knowledge to astronomy as well as being an apothecary. There was concern for the health of women as the radical doctor Peter Chamberlen was responsible for the technical innovation of midwives’ forceps.

John Wallis broadened the concept of mathematics, especially in the areas of arithmetic, geometry, algebra and mechanics. It was fitting that, in an era where religious concerns were with eternity, Wallis invented our symbol for infinity.

There is no doubt that Oliver Cromwell’s religious convictions drove him to overthrow what he perceived as an unrighteous monarchy and replaced it with what could be classed as the closest that England has come to as a theocracy in the modern era. It was almost ironic that the Lord Protector who had a strong sense of the divine providence working in the affairs of men who replaced Charles I who was overthrown because of his intrinsic belief in the divine right of kings. However, in contrast to Charles I’s appeal to retain the status quo, Cromwell utilised his religious beliefs to advocate tolerance and to broaden the thoughts of the English nation.

Bibliography

G. E. Aylmer, Rebellion or Revolution? (Oxford University Press, 1996)

John Cannon, ed., The Oxford Companion to British History (Oxford University Press, 1997)   

Sir George Clark, Illustrated History of Great Britain (Oxford University Press, 1971)

Barry Coward, Oliver Cromwell (Longman, 1991)

Antonia Fraser, Cromwell – Our Chief of Man (Arrow Books, 1993)

Antonia Fraser, The Weaker Vessel (Phoenix Press, 2002)

Plantagenet Somerset Fry, The Kings and Queens of England and Scotland (DK, 1991)

Adam Hart-Davis, What the Tudors and Stuarts did for us (Boxtree, 1996)

Christopher Hill, God’s Englishman (Penguin, 1990)

A.    C. Underwood, A History of English Baptists (Baptist Union Publications, 1947)