Godly Commonwealth

During the Interregnum (1649-1660), England was governed as a Commonwealth, that is, as a republic rather than a monarchy. It was a heady time for Puritans, even those who opposed the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell 'the Usurper.' They envisioned, prayed for and worked towards a godly, theocratic government, rather than the arbitrary, despotic government that the Stuart kings had personified. This was true even of those Puritans -- and there were many -- who opposed the regicide of Charles I and desired the return of the covenanted Charles II.

It is worth taking note of two particular Puritan treatises advocating theocratic government, which have much in common: Richard Baxter's A Holy Commonwealth and John Eliot's The Christian Commonwealth. Both were published in 1659 (although Eliot's treatise was actually written, it is believed, in the 1640s), and both were later retracted by the authors for pragmatic reasons (Eliot retracted his work in 1662, and Baxter in 1670, to please the royalist authorities and remove a "stumbling-block" of offense for those who perceived seditious tendencies in their works). Both books were born from a "common impulse" to see society governed under the headship of King Jesus. William Lamont writes in his introduction to the 1994 edition of Baxter's Holy Commonwealth (pp. xvi, xxvii) that:

[Baxter] knew all about New England from, among others, John Eliot, the missionary who was converting the native Indians to Christianity. The excited correspondence of the two men -- for there were parallels in the problems posed by American heathens and Kidderminster reprobates -- throughout the 1650s would result in two near-identical titles, published in the same year of 1659: Baxter's Holy Commonwealth and Eliot's Christian Commonwealth.

In 1659, Richard Baxter -- who although he had supported Parliament in the 1640s in its military resistance to King Charles I, had never quite fully supported Oliver Cromwell -- was enthusiastic in his support of Richard Cromwell, whom he viewed as magistrate with great potential and lacking in his father's regicidal and tyrannical baggage (Lamont describes A Holy Commonwealth as a 'love poem to Richard Cromwell').

A Holy Commonwealth was written in a turbulent, euphoric time when Baxter saw great things ahead. It contains 380 theses designed to 1) justify Baxter's support for Parliament in the 1640s, 2) lay out the groundwork for Biblical magistracy, include the proper theocratic relationship between church and state, 3) respond to James Harrington's views on the utopian republic as described in The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), and 4) provide a Biblical and historical rationale for the obedience of subjects to lawful magistrates and their resistance to tyrants. As a result of the fast-changing political scenario in England, a series of Meditations was included by Baxter at the end of the work when it was published which reflect the dismay he felt at the direction the nation had taken in the short time between when he wrote the work and when it was ready for the press. The 1994 edition includes his 1670 recantation of (parts of) the work as well. The reasons for his retraction are complex having to do with the political baggage it brought to the Protectorate as well as to him personally during the Restoration, rather than the substance of his arguments. When reading it today, it helps to remember the context of its initial writing, the subsequent Meditations, its later retraction and its place in Baxter's political writings overall. It is a curious and valuable work for these reasons.

George R. Abernathy, Jr., wrote, "The English Presbyterians and the Stuart Restoration, 1648-1663," in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 55, Part 2 (1965), p. 25:

A single quotation from the Holy Commonwealth is sufficient to indicate Baxter's basic position:

If the whole Family, with whom the People were in Covenant be extirpated, or become uncapable, the People may forme the Government as they please, (so they contradict not the Law of God:) not by Authority, but by Contract with the next chosen Government; nor as Subjects, but as Free men, the Government being dissolved.80

80 Ibid., p. 451 [this is Thesis 375, which appears on p. 208 of the 1994 edition]; italics added.

Meanwhile, John Eliot wrote The Christian Commonwealth: or, The Civil Policy of the Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ from New England in the 1640s as encouraging reports came in from the mother country that godly magistracy was coming into its own. The manuscript was shared with friends in England, but sat around for over a decade before someone took occasion to send it to the printer. Although the timing may have seemed auspicious just then, those fast-changing events in England proved otherwise. After the Restoration, Massachusetts authorities, eager to curry favor from the Crown, banned the book and required Eliot to provide a written retraction and apology. Like Baxter, it appears that he did so to avoid giving offense rather than because he actually repudiates the principles contained within. This book, which advocates the Headship of Christ over England and all the nations, including the political sphere, and the institution of theocratic civil government modeled after Exodus 18, is said to be "the first book of political theory written by an American and also the first book to be banned by an American government."

Art and Music in Puritan Worship

Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, Appendix B, "Art and Music in Puritan Worship," pp. 268-272:

Macaulay has popularized a grave misrepresentation of the Puritans as fanatical Philistines, apostles of gloom, utterly antagonistic to the arts and music.
...
This charge would make all Puritans tone-deaf and colour-blind iconoclasts. Its untruth has been fully and finally rebutted Dr Percy Scholes in The Puritans and Music (1934).
...
The Puritan did not object to the arts as such: indeed, the Puritans numbered amongst their adherents such poets as Edmund Spenser, Sir Philip Sidney, John Milton and Andrew Marvell. The typical attitude is that of John Cotton, who declares that whilst instrumental music is banned in the worship of the Church,

Nor do we forbid the private use of any instrument of musick there-withal.

The Puritans only objected to elaborate church music which did not edify the congregations and, indeed, the very complexities of such music made it impossible for the common people to sing the praises of God.
...
In conclusion, the Puritans must bear their share of the blame for the wholesale destruction of many beautiful monuments at the hands of such iconoclasts as William Dowsing. But their aim was not Philistinism. It might have been misguided, but it was nevertheless sincere. They thus hoped to uproot all idolatrous practices which God had not required in his worship. Their motto, to which they held inflexibly, was: 'Quod non jubet, vetat'. But if beauty was forced to abdicate from the churches, she was accorded a coronation in their homes. The Puritans objected to Sunday dancing, to the use of instrumental music in the worship of the Church, and to ecclesiastical representations of the Trinity and the Saints. But it is utterly untrue to affirm that therefore music, dancing and art were banished from the Commonwealth. Dancing was encouraged by Cromwell, celebrated by Milton in L'Allegro; it was an essential part of the education of Colonel Hutchinson's family, and it was at the height of the Puritan regime that Playford published his English Dancing Master (1651). As to the private encouragement of music, it will suffice to remember that 'Opera, so far as Britain is concerned, was actually an importation of Puritan times'. A group of people who produced Milton, and who popularized the Psalms, are unfairly described as Philistines. Privately they encouraged the arts and, if they objected to the use of the arts in the service of the Church, their conviction was not aesthetic but religious in basis. It was not that they disliked art, but that they loved religion more.

Last Battle of the English Civil War

New England is known for its Puritan heritage, while Maryland is known, and rightly so, for its Catholic legacy. Both areas today are known currently for their "liberal" (an unhelpful but often-used label) Democratic politics. What is less known today, is that Maryland has a Puritan heritage too. In fact, the "last battle of the English Civil War" was fought on Maryland territory.

The English Civil War encompassed military engagements in the three kingdoms: England, Ireland and Scotland beginning in 1642. Meanwhile, the colonies were not immune to the conflicts in the motherland. Puritan colonists had attempted to settle in Virginia as early as 1638 or sooner, but with Virginia Anglican authorities firmly in control at the time, Puritan colonists in Virginia were forced to move north and settle in Maryland. They did so on the banks of the Severn River, first establishing a little community called Providence, then another town nearby which came be known as Annapolis, the future capital of Maryland and, briefly, of the United States (1783-1784). Puritans gradually consolidated their power base from there. It was in 1652 at the site of the famous Maryland Liberty Tree (which until 1999 was located on the campus of St. John's College) that Puritan colonists here are said to have negotiated a peace treaty with the Susquahannock Indians.

Meanwhile, across the pond, the 1651 Battle of Worcester consolidated Oliver Cromwell's hold on England and Scotland. But Royalist threats to the Commonwealth were far from over. The Penruddock Uprising by Royalists in March 1655 was a failed attempt to overthrow the Protectorate.

In the complex political situation arising from the conflict in the mother country, Puritan colonists wrested control of the Maryland Provincial Government in 1654 from the Proprietary rule of Cecilius Calvert, Lord Baltimore. From approximately 1654 to 1658, Maryland was ruled by a Puritan assembly which met at the home of Richard Preston, "Preston-on-Patuxent." Preston (d. 1669) was a Puritan at the time, but later became known as the "Great Quaker."

The Puritan/Parliamentary-Anglo-Catholic/Royalist conflict in Maryland came to a head on March 25, 1655. The forces of deposed Royalist governor William Stone attempted to crush the Puritans by sailing towards and marching on their stronghold at the Severn, but Puritan forces led by William Fuller defeated the Royalists in naval and land engagements. The Battle of the Severn was the first battle ever fought between American soldiers on American soil, and it was the only battle in America in which the Commonwealth Flag was flown as well as the first battle in which the Provincial flag of Maryland was flown (black and yellow colors).

A Puritan assembly ruled Maryland until negotiations resulted in the relinquishing of their power to Lord Baltimore on April 27, 1658, and a general amnesty for all parties concerned. As elsewhere, the time of Puritan rule was brief, but not to be forgotten. President John F. Kennedy used to enjoy the lines of a musical: "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot." His niece Kathleen Townsend Kennedy was lieutenant governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003. As a former of citizen of Maryland, I hope that it will not be forgot, that for one brief shining moment it was a Puritan Maryland.

Westminster Assembly Portrait

Many who study church history or are acquainted with the Westminster Assembly and its work are familiar with this picture. It is a fine picture in that it brings to life a moment in history that is noteworthy to those who love the Puritans and what they stood for.

This portrait is available for purchase at Reformation Art and looks especially nice when hung over the mantle.

As I often do, I like to research the origin of things, and I had occasion to do so concerning this portrait some time ago. It is an interesting story and I learned the history behind it by reading a review of the painting by The Baptist Magazine for 1849, published by the Baptist Missionary Society, Vol. XLI, pp. 494-498.

The painting is by J.R. Herbert [John Rogers Herbert, 1810 - 1890, converted to Roman Catholicism in 1840] (engraved by Samuel Bellin, published by Thomas Agnew) and was first published on December 16, 1848 (first displayed, perhaps, in 1847). It is entitled "Assertion of Liberty of Conscience by the Independents in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1644." It shows Philip Nye arguing against Presbyterianism by claiming that it was unfavorable to civil liberty. The prospectus that accompanied the publication of this painting makes unsubstantianted claims about Philip Nye's specific words, but the gist of it is that the painting purports to show the Independent's argument against Presbyterianism, with a revisionist or poetic attempt to show Oliver Cromwell, John Owen and John Milton in attendance, none of whom are known to have actually been present.

Despite the context (speaking as a Presbyterian) and the historical inaccuracies portrayed (speaking as a lay student of church history), it remains the best and most well-known attempt to show the Assembly in session, and conveys a powerful and enduring image of this great body of divines at work.

And that is, for those who are interested in the background of somewhat obscure things like a painting of the Westminster Assembly, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.